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.
Udairam Jatav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.2752/13 22/02/13 Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging certain anticipated proposal made by the Gram Panchayat with regard to acquisition of the land in question, petitioner has approached this Court mainly on the ground that petitioner is in occupation of the land and for allotment, petitioner has submitted an application which is pending, merely on anticipation that the Gram Panchayat proposes to take over the land without there being any positive action or resolution, no indulgence into the matter for anticipation of the action is called for. No right accrues to the petitioner on his submission of the application only. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Sahid HussaIn Vs. Mohd.Tarik
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
CRR No.1416/2007 Criminal Revision No.1416/2007 22.2.2013 Shri S.N.Kori, counsel for the applicant. Shri V.K.Tyagi, counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.4. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the judgment dated 5.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in criminal appeal No.139/2006, whereby the respondents were convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 read with section 34 of IPC but, sentence for a period of till rising the Court with fine of Rs.1,000/- was awarded. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 13.11.2003, at about 6 p.m., the applicant alongwith her sister was visiting from Raddi Chowki to Kasai Mandi at Jabalpur by a moped. Near the mandi area, the respondents No.1 to 3 had assaulted him, causing him various injuries including a fracture of left ulna bone. The trial Court, after concluding the trial, convicted the respondents No.1 to 3 for offence punis...
Smt. Baby Nanda Khanna Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.2585/2013 22.2.2013 Shri Amardeep Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondents/State on advance copy. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioner therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal fil...
Shakuntala Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
1 W.P.No.9766/2012 22/2/2013: Shri Anand Datt Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court in the matter of rejecting the application for injunction filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. Petitioner is a plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration of title and injunction with regard to certain disputed land measuring 0.18 decimal situated in mouza Civil Lines, Satna. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, it is seen that both the Courts have evaluated existence of balance of convenience, prima facie case and irreparable loss. Finding that none of the ingredients necessary for grant of injunction is made out the application has been rejected. Concurrent orders passed by the trial Court and Appellate Court in the m...
Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.6201/2008(S) 22.02.2013 Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. Order sheet dated 3.10.2012 indicates that this Court has specifically directed the respondents to file additional return indicating under what circumstances similarly situated persons were extended the benefit of regularisation with retrospective effect, whereas, the same benefit has been denied to the petitioner. Since the additional return was not filed on 3.12.2012, further time was granted with a clear stipulation that in case the additional return is not filed, the petition would be heard without the additional return of the respondents. Again this order was not complied with and, therefore, on 28.1.2013, this Court has imposed a cost of Rs.1,000/- and directed for filing of the additional return. Today, again a prayer is made for grant of time to file the additional return. Even the cost has not been deposited by the respondents. I...
Kishore Samrite Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Kishore Samrite Vs.Union of India. & Others Writ Petition No.664 22. 2.2013: Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though it is stated in the writ petition that the Income Tax Department has not conducted the enquiry against respondent No.5. But during the couRs.of hearing it is stated that petitioner has sought for certain information with regard to respondent No.5 under the Right to Information Act, but same has not been granted. If the application of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act has not been considered or information has not been given, petitioner has remedy to file an appeal under the said Act itself, therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of remedy available under the Right to Information Act. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Sharad Chand Soni Vs. Lakhmi Chand Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
1 C.R.No.609/2004 C.R.No.609/2004 22.02.2013 None for the parties. Perused the impugned order. This Court on 17.9.2004 directed to issue notice to the non-applicant but the non-applicant has not been served. On bare perusal of the process-server's report this Court finds that because after the expiry of the date of hearing fixed by the Registry of this Court on the summons the notice was received by the process-server, therefore, it was returned back. I have gone through the impugned order. Indeed, right to file written-statement was closed by the learned Trial Court by passing the impugned order. An application was submitted by the defendant-applicant that along with the application he is filing the written-statement which may be taken on record. In the application it has been stated that since the record had gone to the learned FiRs.Appellate Court and it came only after 25.6.2004, therefore, he could not file the written-statement and therefore, by allowing the application the writt...
Radha Charan Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.2749/2013 22/02/2013 Shri Sankalp Kocher, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy 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 ...
Ravi Shankar Nema Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No.2581/2013 22.02.2013 Mr.N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 12.02.2013, by which the petitioner who is a regular employee and is posted as driver is sought to be transferred to Sub-Division Lateri, District Vidisha to work as a probationer for a period of two yeaRs.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a regular employee and is posted in the office of Collector at Mandla. It is further submitted that the status of the petitioner as a regular employee has been duly recognised by an order dated 28.02.2011 passed in writ petition No.3509/2009. However, despite the aforesaid order, the impugned order of transfer has been passed by which petitioner is being transferred as probationer for a period of two yeaRs.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that with regard to his grievan...
Phoolchand Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Phoolchand Sahu versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.2428 22. 2.2013: Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an order passed by the Tehsildar Shahpura exercising powers under Section 250 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, this writ petition has been filed. Against the order passed by the Tehsildar petitioner has remedy to file FiRs.Appeal and Second Appeal under Section 44 and Revision under Section 50 of the Act, therefore, a petition directly before this Court, by-passing the three tier statutory remedy available, is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of statutory remedy available, this petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- Next ›
- Last »