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.
Santosh Kumar Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.1412/2012 Santosh Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 20th day of February, 2013) The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 25.5.2012 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge Hoshangabad in S.T. No.284/11, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 177, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were framed against the applicant. 2 The facts related for the disposal of the present...
Kedar Prasad Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.21547/2012 20.02.2013 Mr.A.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks quashment of order dated 29.9.2011 as well as direction to the respondents to accord the benefit of scheme of notional increment to the petitioner and for fixing the pension and gratuity with all the consequential benefits accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that he has submitted a representation with regard to his grievance contained in Annexure P/14 to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of circular dated 12.9.2002 issued by the Finance Department, Government of M.P.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representation submitted by the...
Dhanraj Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.14676/2012 20.02.2013 Petitioners by Shri A.K.Jain, Advocate. Service of notice of this petition on respondent is still awaited. On perusal of the notice returned unserved, it appears that address of the respondent is not correctly mentioned on it. Let a repeated notice of this petition be sent to the respondent by R.A.D.with correct and complete particulars of address. Steps be taken within seven working days. Notice is returnable within three weeks. Petitioner shall ensure that correct particulars of the respondent are mentioned and office is also directed to check it and then will send the notice to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for ex-parte stay of the proceedings on the ground that service of notice was made on one Suresh who was neither the relative not member of the respondent and cognizance of the matter has been taken on the basis of the affidavits of the respondent. However, no case of grant of ex- parte stay of proceedings is made out. Ap...
Matsyougyoga Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Sidhkhand Vs. the State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.1270/2013 20.2.2013 Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Government Advocate for the State. The petitioner is a registered cooperative society. According to the petitioner on 30.6.2012 respondent no.5 Assistant Director, Department of Fisheries has granted Patta of Siddhkhan Water Reservoir. for fishing in its favour for a period of 10 yeaRs.But later respondent no.2 Conservator of Forest vide order dated 5.11.2012 has granted similar lease of the same tank up to 30.6.2013 in favour of respondent no.6. The petitioner submits that respondent no.2 is of the view that since the water reservoir is in the forest land respondent no.5 has no authority to grant its Patta. Admittedly, both respondent nos.5 and 6 have approached respondent no.3 Collector Tikamgarh by making representations dated 28.12.2012, Annexure P5 and 3.1.2013, Annexure P6 to resolve the dispute. Therefore, at this stage when respondent no.3 Collector has been requ...
Gyan Prakash Vs. N.K.Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 Contempt Case No.1110/2008 Gyan Prakash Shri N.K.Tripathi & another 20.2.2013 Petitioner Gyan Prakash present in person. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.Advocate General for the contemner. This petition is filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 30.7.2007 passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.28891/2003 by which a Division bench of this Court had issued following directions: 4. We dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the respondents will comply with the provisions of Sections 136, 158(6) and 160 of the Act and file an affidavit of compliance once every three months before this Court for a period of one year. The respondents are also directed to notify in the news paper that information will available to the public under Section 160 of the Act as and when required. The grievance of the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 136, 158(6) and 160 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were not complied with by the respondents, so they are li...
Ram Manohar Lohiya College Vs. National Council for Teacher Education ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
W.P.No.2016/2013 20.02.2013 Shri Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.3. The petitioner has sought following reliefs:- "a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction includ-ing a writ of mandamus directing the NCTE for issuing a formal order of continuation of unconditional recognition of the petitioner in light of the minutes of meeting dated 07/08.01.2013 of NCTE WRC. b) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction including a writ of mandamus directing the State Government for including the petitioner in the ongoing admission counseling process for 2012-2013 B.Ed. admissions and allot students to the petitioner institution. c) This Hon'ble court be further pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction including a writ of mandamus directing the respon...
Devendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2426/2013 20.02.2013 Mr.Deepak Okhade, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Village Employment Assistant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Village Employment Assistant in respect of Gram Panchayat Kuvarpur vide resolution dated 22.7.2012 and 2.10.2012. However, the order of appointment has not been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that he has submitted a representation with regard to his grievance contained in Annexure P/9 to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to decide the representation within a time bound period. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that ...
Smt. Jhunnobai Vs. Jamna Prasad Kachhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 W.P.No.888/2010 20.2.2013 Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order passed by the trial Court whereby an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of a registered document by a handwriting expert has been rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the reasons indicated by the Court below, it is seen that the Court has found that evidence of the parties are closed, case is fixed for final argument and as prayer is made at the time of final hearing, application is rejected only on the ground that it is only for delay the proceeding. Rejection of application cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. Accordingly, finding no ...
Shiv Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2473/2013 20.02.2013 Mr.Sanjay Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as regular incumbent with effect from 9.3.2006 and to pay all consequential benefits as extended to the respondent No.5, who is junior to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to submit a representation and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that in case, the petitioner submits the representation to the Competent Authority, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a repre...
Pravesh Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 C.R.No.68/2011 15.02.2013 Shri A.K.Choubey with Shri J. Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 7. Ms.Savita Choudhary, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.8/State. They are heard on the question of admission. This revision application under Section 115 of C.P.C.has been filed against the order dated 17.01.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Harda in C.S.No.22-A/2009, whereby the preliminary issue in regard to the limitation has been decided and it has been held that the suit has been filed within limitation. The contention of A.K.Choubey, learned counsel for the applicants is that earlier the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge Class II, Harda, which was registered as C.S.No.115-A/07. An objection was taken in that suit that the suit property fetches higher valuation and therefore the Civil Judge Class II is not having the pecuniary jurisdiction. Resultantly, the objec...
- ‹ Prev
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- Next ›
- Last »