Madhya Pradesh Court February 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Radhey Shyam Malviya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.2887/2013 25.2.2013 Shri Shravan Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in th...
Shrikant Bajpai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
CRR No.2109/2012 Criminal Revision No.2109/2012 25.2.2013 Shri K.G.Saxsena, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard on I.A.No.22438/2012, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision. Looking to the grounds mentioned in the application, application is allowed. Delay of 145 days in filing the present revision is hereby condoned. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 224 of IPC vide judgment dated 5.1.2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Katni (Shri Ajay Kumar Singh) and sentenced for 2 years rigorous imprisonment. In criminal appeal No.25/2012 vide order dated 16.2.2012 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court).Katni, the appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant was a convict for the offence punishable under sectio...
Mahesh Prasad Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.348/2013 M.Cr.C No.348/2013 25.02.2013 Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate, for the respondent/Lokayukt. This petition has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C) against the order dated 2/11/2012 passed by Special Judge, Dindori dismissing the application under section 311 Cr.P.C for summoning concerned Law Secretary, who accorded sanction for prosecution in evidence as defence witness. According to prosecution the petitioner, while working as Education Officer, Amarpur, District- Dindori demanded bribe of Rs.40,000/- from one Ravi Kumar Maravi for making verification of service record of his deceased father. On 09/08/2010, petitioner was caught red handed while taking a part of aforesaid bribe i.e Rs.5,000/- from Ravi Kumar and a case under section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, PC Act.) was registered against him. During trial, on 14/09/...
Rajeshwari Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2013
1 M. Cr.C.NO.13067/2010 26.2.2013. Shri L.N.Sakle, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned PL for the respondent/ State. This case is listed today for final hearing at motion stage. The petition is heard finally. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Nawgaon District Chhatarpur directing to register the offence punishable under Section 182 and 211 of IPC against the petitioners on the basis of the Istgasa No.2/10 filed by the S.H.O.P.S. Nowgaon, on which a criminal Case No.731/2010 against the petitioneRs.The Istgasa has been filed against the petitioners to register and investigate the offence punishable under Section 182 and 211 of IPC on the ground that petitioners have not supported the statement given before the investigation officer and turned hostile at the time of recording the evidence in S.T.No.126/07 in the Court of learned Additio...
Bablu @ Ajay Rathore Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1865/97 Bablu alias Ajay Rathore APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh RESPONDENT PRESENT:HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE M.A. SIDDIQUI Shri Abhishek Gulatee, Advocate for appellant. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, PL for respondent/State. Judgment Reserved on 19.02.2013 Judgment Delivered on 22.02.2013 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred by the appellant feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.8.97, delivered by the then Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No.64/95 in which appellant has been convicted under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for seven years as also under Section 451 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1000/, in default of payment of fine appellant to further undergo R.I. for three months.2. Undisputed facts are that the prosecutrix (PW.3) is the wife of Raju Rathore (PW.4) and accused- -2- appellant is known to her being the neighbour, and prosecutrix was major at the time of inciden...
M/S Malca Construction (India) Pvt. Vs. M.P. Police Housing Corporatio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Arbitration Case No :58. / 2010 M/s Malca Construction (India) P Ltd versus MP Police Housing Corpn 22.02.2013. Shri Shekhar Sharma for the applicant. Shri K.S.Wadhwa for the non-applicant. Keeping in view the objection raised by Shri K.S.Wadhwa and the arbitration clause as contained in Clause 29 of the agreement in question, as the parties have agreed to refer the dispute to the MP Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, applicant should file an application before the Tribunal. Accordingly, granting liberty to approach the said Tribunal, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
S.K. Verma Vs. Shri O.P. Rawat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Contempt Case No :484. 2009 S.K.Verma versus Shri O.P.Rawat and others 22.02.2013. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal for the applicant. Shri Harish Agnihotri, Government Advocate, for the non-applicants. Interalia contending that monetary claim accruing to the applicant by virtue of an order passed by this Court on 1.12.2008, in Writ Petition No.12931/2004, has not been granted, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Non-applicants have filed reply and it is pointed out that vide order-dated 15.7.2007 Annexure R/1, the entire claim has been granted to the applicant. Applicant has filed a rejoinder and it is submitted by him that a sum of `59,021/- has been recovered from him and the same has not been paid till date. Similarly a sum of `4,838/- towards TA/DA has also not been paid. If the amount recovered has not been paid to the applicant, non-applicants are directed to examine his claim and pay to him the amount, if any, recovered within a period of two months from ...
Suresh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
1 Writ Appeal No. 1007/2012 22.2.2013 Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Maninder S. Bhatti, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. Heard. Order dated 16.8.2012 passed in W.P. No. 6733/2011 by learned Single Judge is being assailed vide this Intra Court Appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005; whereby, the writ petition directed against the order dated 8.4.2011 by Additional Commissioner, who vide said order while setting aside the order of Collector, affirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hanumana, District Rewa, who set aside the selection process in which the appellant was appointed as Panchayat Karmi Patera, Janpad Panchay...
Ram Kripal Vs. the Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No.503/2013 22.2.2013 Shri Arvind Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the State. The petitioner is a resident of Chhatarpur. According to him on 18.2.2008 he, vide Annexure P1, had applied for licence for holding a 12 bore gun before respondent no.1 Collector, Chhatarpur, but till this date no final order has been passed on it. The learned counsel for petitioner has, therefore, prayed this this petition be finally disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to finally decide the application within a reasonable period. To this prayer, the learned Government Advocate has no objection. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, this petition is being finally disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to decide the application, Annexure P1, of the petitioner within a reasonable time but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Certified copy as per rules. JUDGE ps...
Komal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.2554/2013 22.2.2013 Shri Sankalp Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. The petitioneRs.daily wagers working against the post have come before this Court stating that despite completing the requisite years of service, they have not been paid the special allowances, though specifically the instructions have been issued by the authorities way back in the year 2008. The representation is made to this effect before the respondent no.3 but the same has not been decided, therefore, they have come before this Court. It is seen that the scheme has been made by the State Government in terms of the directives issued by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi and otheRs.2006(4) SCC 1.wherein it has been held that those daily wager who have completed 10 years or 20 years of service would be paid Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- respectively as special allowance. Accordingly, the writ petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »