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.
Mohd. Aziz Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.26/2013 19/02/2013 Shri R.S.Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.K.Singh, GA for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 2/10/12 in connection with Crime No.547/12 registered at P.S.Habibganj, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376, 302, 201/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that applicant is not a main accused. Nothing is alleged against this applicant in regard to committing rape and murder of deceased Kavita. The only allegation against this applicant is that he was involved in disposal of dead body of Kavita. For causing disappearance of evidence of rape and murder, at the most, an offence u/s 201/34 of IPC may be attributed to this applicant. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take consider...
Dinanath Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
WP 2405.08 Writ Petition No.2405 of 2008 (Dinanath Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another) 19-02-2013 Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. I.A.No.1768/2013 an application for taking subsequent event on record considered. Allowed. Documents are taken on record. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition heard finally. Order dated 21-01-2008 whereby the entire pension of the petitioner has been withheld because of his conviction for an offence punishable under section 467, 471, read with section 5(1)(b).5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is being assailed. While working as Co-operative Inspector in the Cooperative Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, petitioner was proceeded against for an offence punishable under section 467, 471 read with section 5 (1) (d).5 (2) of 1947 Act in Special Case No.2/1994 which culminated in the order of conviction passed on 01-04-1997....
Ramadhar Vs. Union of India Th. Sect. and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
(1) Civil Revision No.1251/2003 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Civil Revision No.1251 / 2003 Applicant : Ramadhar, S/o. Late Shri Pissulal, Electric Fitter (HS-2) R/o. Quarter No.1141/1, Ordnance Factory Premises, Itarsi, Tehsil Itarsi District Hoshangabad (M.P.) Vs. Respondents :1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Home, Defence Building, New Delhi.2. Estate Officer, Ordnance Factory Itarsi, Tehsil Itarsi, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) _________________________________________________________ Shri Jagtendra Prasad, Advocate for applicant. Shri V.P. Nema, Advocate for respondents. _________________________________________________________ ORDER (19/02/2013) This revision application under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 23.10.2003 passed by learned District Judge, Hoshangabad in Misc. Appeal No.6/2002 whereby dismissing the appeal of the applicant and the order dated 16.12.2002 passed b...
Neelu Alias Rajendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Writ Petition No.16996/2012 19.2.2013 Shri D.D.Bhargava, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the State. The petitioner is a life convict. He has admittedly been convicted under sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. As on today, the petitioner has reportedly undergone about 15 years and ten months of the jail sentence. The petitioner, therefore, applied for his pre-mature release from jail on the basis of circular dated 10.1.2012, Annexure R1, of the State Government. But the State Government by the impugned order dated 28.8.2012, Annexure P5, has rejected the prayer. It is in this background the petitioner has filed present petition for quashing of order dated 28.8.2012. The circular dated 10.1.2012, Annexure R1, deals with pre- mature release of prisoners on the eve of Republic and Independence D...
Yagya Narayan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 1035 Of 2009 (S) 19.2.2013 Shri D.K. Gangrade, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents. Heard. The matter though has been posted for consideration of I.A. No. 10534/2010, an application for vacating the stay order dated 4.2.2009; however, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. Order dated 8.7.2008 is being assailed vide this petition; whereby, the petitioners who were on deputation as Block Resource Centre, Coordinator in District Education Centre have been repatriated to their parent department, Department of School Education. Petitioners vide order dated 22.11.2005 were selected for deputation as B.R.C.C while they were serving as Lecturers in different schools in District Raisen. The deputation was to facilitate Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in furtherance to the scope and object of Jan Shiksha Adhiniyam, 2002 and in consonanc...
Manish Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Shri S.P.S.Parihar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Con.C.No.1634/12 19/02/13 Shri P.C.Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Inter alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 2/12/11 in W.P.No.17862/11 has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. On going through the material available on record particularly the order dated 2/12/11 passed in W.P.No.17862/11 and the facts of the case, it is seen that petitioner is an elected Corporator and it was his grievance in the writ petition that respondents No.4 and 5 in the writ petition one C.M.O. and the President of the Nagar Panchayat have committed certain misappropriation in the matter of utilizing the funds of the Corporation. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed making a prayer that the action be taken against them. When the case came up for hearing on 2/12/11, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner was noted, the provisions of Section 41-A of the M.P.Municipalities Act, 1961 was taken note of and virtua...
Ramgopal Kurmi Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 8608 Of 2010 19.2.2013 Shri D.K. Gangrade, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents. Heard. The matter though has been posted for consideration of I.A. No. 10534/2010, an application for vacating the stay order dated 4.2.2009 filed in W.P. No. 1035/2009 (S) which is analogously heard along with this writ petition; however, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. Order dated 8.7.2008 is being assailed vide this petition; whereby, the petitioners who were on deputation as Block Resource Centre, Coordinator in District Education Centre have been repatriated to their parent department, Department of School Education. Petitioners vide order dated 22.11.2005 were selected for deputation as B.R.C.C while they were serving as Lecturers in different schools in District Raisen. The deputation was to facilitate Sarva ...
Naundilal Gupta Vs. Manish Rastogi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Naundilal Gupta versus Manish Rastogi & Others Contempt Petition No.563 19. 2.2013: Shri R.B.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned counsel for the respondents. In pursuance to the order passed on 8.8.2007 in W.P.No.13478/2004 it is an admitted position that the principal amount has been recovered and deposited in Labour Court. However, interest on principal amount has not been recovered, therefore, to that extent compliance is yet to be made. Keeping in view the aforesaid the Collector, Bhopal is directed to get the interest amount recovered in pursuance to provisions of Revenue Recovery Certificate and deposit it to Labour Court within a period of three months. With the aforesaid the contempt petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Arun Kumar Verma Vs. Shri Ikwal Singh Bais
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
1 Conc. No.1059/2011 19.2.2013 Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. Matter pertains to charging of ground rent on the petitioner. The question involved was as to whether the ground rent is to be charged in accordance to the terms and conditions of the allotment made to the petitioner or in accordance to the statutory rules namely Rule 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. On 25.6.2010 the writ petition No.9231/2007 was disposed of in the light of an order passed in W.P.No.3507/2008 - Anil Kumar Rathor versus Jabalpur Development Authority. Grievance of the petitioner seems to be that his claim for payment of ground rent has not been decided even though in the order passed in the writ petition it is held that similar benefit as has been granted in the case of Anil Kumar Rathor be granted to the petitioner. The application is pending since 2011 and it seems that no action has been ta...
Prakash Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
W.P.No.2352/2013 19.2.2013 Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State on advance copy. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it would be appropriate in the interest of justice if the petitioner makes a representation to the respondent no.2 with respect to the allegations made in this petition, the Collector, Katni shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that if the Collector intends to pass any adveRs.order against any of the parties, he shall issue notice and hear all concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice JUDGE P/...
- ‹ Prev
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- Next ›
- Last »