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.
Benkateshwar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Review Petition No :97. / 2013 Benkateshwar Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 22.02.2013. Shri Sanjay Singh for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the non- applicants. This application has been filed for clarification/review of an order passed on 7.11.2012, in Writ Petition No.24187/2003. Applicant was granted promotion on the post of Deputy Director with effect 22.2.1988; and, on the post of Joint Director with effect from 31.12.1996. However, as the promotions were given only on the basis of notional promotion and as actual arrears of salary with effect from the date of promotion were not granted, applicant had filed the application before the State Administration Tribunal in the year 1999. After winding up of the Tribunal, matter was transferred to this Court. The relief claimed for by the applicant was to give him arrears of salary with regard to the promotion on the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) with effect from 22.2.1988; and on the ...
Matadeen Pastor Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No.2656/2013 22.2.2013 Shri A.K.Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Heard on admission. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 11.2.2013, Annexure P11, passed by respondent no.7 Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tikamgarh, whereby he has directed the Returning Officer to go ahead with the process of election. The petition relates to holding of election of Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Jeron, District Tikamgarh. Earlier, under instructions dated 11.1.2013 of respondent no.2 Commissioner, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal, election of second and third phase of co-operative societies were stayed. Thereafter, by another memo dated 8.2.2013 direction has been issued to go ahead with the election as per programme. The Deputy Registrar by the impugned order dated 11.2.2013 has merely communicated the directions to proceed with the co-operative elections as per programme. The petitioner has not challenged the memo dated 8.2.2013 pursuant to...
Arvind Kumar Vs. Rakesh Singhai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No :19432. / 2012 Arvind Kumar versus Rakesh Sighai and another 22.02.2013. Shri Abhijit Bhoumick for the petitioner. This petition was filed on 9.11.2012, it is yet to be admitted and even notices have not been issued. Petitioner is defendant and has filed this writ petition challenging an order-dated 18.10.2012, passed by Civil Judge Class I, Bina in Civil Suit No.163-A/2010, rejecting an application for amendment filed by the petitioner. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the suit in question for declaration of his Bhumiswami right and permanent injunction. Petitioner had filed the application for amendment and the same has been rejected by the learned court. By the amendment petitioner wanted to incorporate a pleading to the effect that, on 10.10.2012, the plaintiff has dispossessed the petitioner from the area in question and, therefore, petitioner wanted to amend the pleadings and seek restoration of possession. The Court has taken note of the application and found...
Naresh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Cr.R.No.93/2012 22.2.2013 Shri A.D.Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri P.N.Verma, counsel for the respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity) Bijawar, District Chhatarpur in Special Case No.48 of 2011 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act was framed against the applicant. The prosecution story in short is that on 1.12.2009 inspection of Panchayat Bhawan, Gram Panchayat, Mandevra, Police Station Bakswaha, District Chhatarpur was done by the officers of the Electricity Board and they found that a water motor was running with the help of direction connection taken from L.T Line and therefore, a panchanama was prepared and a complaint was filed against the applicant, who was the Sarpanch in that Gram Panchayat at that time. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is app...
Shiv Kumar Bhatt Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
R..P.No.92/2013 22.2.2013 Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though this review petition is not maintainable in this Court, in view of the fact that the petitioners are trying to get correction in a disposed of writ petition in the cause title and have not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by this Court. Even such a prayer cannot be accepted under any other head to direct the correction in a disposed of writ petition. It is seen that the writ petiiton was preferred by three writ petitioners which has been disposed of on making applcation in pursuance of the order passed in Prerna W/o Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and others in W.P.No.6773/2006 decided on 26.1.2007 by this Court and analogous petitions decided subsequently. The only complaint made by the petitioner is that because of the typographical error in describing the place of posting of the persons like petiitoner and place of posting of respondent no.6 only, the o...
The Zila Van Upaj Sangh West Sidhi Vs. Rajendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
---1--- W.A.No.565/2010 22.2.2013 Shri Anshuman Singh, earned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.C.Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Shri K. Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 5. Heard finally. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 25.3.2010 passed in W.P.No.9800/2004, by which the learned Single Judge has set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents by which the pay of the petitioner was reduced to the minimum of the pay scale for three years and the authorities were directed to recover the amount of Rs.65.635.50 in 34 installments at the rate of Rs.1900/-. The learned Single Judge has set aside the punishment inter alia on the ground that the important documents which was the basis for issuance of charge sheet were not made available to the respondents. However, in the result the learned Single Judge has simply directed the appellant to refund the amount already deducted ...
Anwari Begum Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
1 W.P.No.2431/2013 22.2.2013 Shri Chandra Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Inter alia contending that by forging a document respondents No.5 and 6 are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question and contending that an application filed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.has been rejected and seeking action against the respondents No.5 and 6 for forging of the documents, this writ petition has been filed. It is stated that with regard to the house in question in the year 2004 certain loan was obtained by petitioner's husband from respondents No.5 and 6. At that point of time it is stated that signatures of petitioner's husband on certain blank papers were obtained and not by forging the said documents, the house is shown to be transferred in the name of respondents No.5 and 6 and when a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, he directed the petitioner to take recouRs.to the r...
B.L. Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Ministry of Tribal Welfare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.16178/2012 22.02.2013 Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instructions and, therefore, he will not prosecute the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that because of filing of the present writ petition by suppressing the material facts, the respondent No.5 has filed an application for initiating proceedings for contempt against petitioner herein. It is stated that said Contempt Petition No.353/2013 is pending consideration and in case the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, the contempt proceedings against the petitioner herein would be prejudicially affected. It is seen that the petitioner has filed this writ petition making certain allegations in regard to caste certificate of respondent No.5. Th...
Uday Kumar Nigam Vs. Satish Kumar Sane
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Appeal No. 1407/2010) Uday Kumar Nigam Vs. Satish Kumar Sane and others (Writ Appeal No. 1346/2010) M.P. Housing Board and another Vs. Satish Kumar Sane and others PRESENT : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI S.A. BOBDE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for Appellant Shri Hemant Shrivastava, Advocate in WA No. 1407/2010 and Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate in W.A. No. 1346/2010 Counsel for respondent No. 1 Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate in both cases Counsel for respondent No. 2 Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate in W.A. No. 1407/2010 O R D E R (22/2/2013) PER SANJAY YADAV, J. These two Intra Court Appeals under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko 2 W.A. No.1407/10 & 1346/10 Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, since arises of an order dated 12.10.2010 passed in W.P. 7804/2008 (S) are analogously heard and decided by t...
Smt.Supriya Singh Vs. Smt.Sulakshan Singh Thru. Lrs.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.8150/2008 22/2/2013 Shri Abhay Shankar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. Shri Bhupendra Shukla, counsel for respndents No.2 to 5. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C against order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Criminal Revision No.12/06, affirming the order dated 4.1.2006 passed by the SDM Amarpatan in Criminal Case No.7/03, whereby the SDM allowed the application of respondent No.1 and directed to exercise her possession on the land bearing KhaSr.No.774 and 779 ad measuring 8.71 acre. Placing reliance on AIR 198.SC 47.Ram Sumer Pluri Mahant versus State of UP and otheRs.present petition has been preferred mainly on the ground that during the pendency of Civil Suit such criminal proceeding under Sections 145,147 of Cr.P.C, should not be entertained and continued. In respect of property in dispute, admittedly, 2 M.Cr.C No.8150/2008 civil suit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »