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.
Virendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12936/2012 28.2.2013 Ms.Savita Choudhary, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 11.12.2011 in connection with Crime No.120/2011 registered at Police Station Khajuraho, District Chhatarpur for offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 120-B of IPC and Section 25(1-A)(B) of Arms Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicant that he has also committed robbery with other co-accused persons but during trial, complainant Varun Yadav himself has not stated his name in regard to the offence under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC. In this way he has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Applicant is in jail and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the Stat...
F.M. Siddiqui Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 W.P.No.3008/2013 28.02.2013 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notice of this writ petition as well as interim relief to the respondents on payment of Process Fee within seven days by registered A.D.The notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended that the Janpad Panchayat on the strength of instructions issued by the State Government had resolved to grant the benefit of 6th Pay Commission Pay Scale to the persons like petitioner and, accordingly, the orders were issued in this respect. However, the Commissioner Panchayat has issued certain instructions on the basis of which this benefit is sought to be withdrawn by the impugned order dated 12.2.2013. The effect of withdrawal of the order of grant of benefit of 6th Pay Commission would be recovery from the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid, till the next consideration of this interim prayer, the operation of impugned order dated 12.2.2013 An...
Sunil Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2556/2013 28.2.2013 Shri Pratyush Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.4705/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.140/2012 registered at P.S.Bag Sewania, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant and other Co.accused persons had challenged the order passed by Addl. Registrar, Co-operative Societies before Joint Registrar, Co.operative Societies. In the meanwhile, Assistant Registrar sent a report to Police on the basis of which, a criminal case has been registered against the applicant and co-accused persons. Applicant is a member of Co-operative Society. Similarly placed co-accused has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Co...
Ramagovind Mishra Vs. Smt. Kalpana Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Contempt Petition No ::1444. / 2012 Ramagovind Mishra and others versus Smt. Kalpana Shrivastava 28.02.2013. Shri Prabhat Shukla for the applicants. Complaining dis-obedience of an order passed on 20.3.2012, in Writ Petition No.4266/2012, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. In the writ petition, on 20.3.2012, this Court directed that the claim of the applicant/petitioner be considered in the light of decision rendered by a Division bench of this Court at Gwalior, in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of MP and otheRs.Writ Appeal No.596/2010, decided on 15.12.2010. It is common knowledge that in pursuance to the order passed by the Gwalior Bench, in W.A.No.596/2010 i.e case of Gopal Chawla, a detailed order was passed by the State Government on 12.8.2011, wherein the representation of Gopal Chawla and others were rejected. The order of the State Government dated 12.8.2011 was a general order applicable to all employees and after this order w...
Raghuwar Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 M. Cr.C.NO.2105/13. 28.2.2013. Shri Shanshank Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Chourasiya, learned PL for the respondent/ State. Shri Brajesh Choubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The petition is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C.For correction in the order dated 6.2.2013 passed by this Court in M. Cr.C.No.12575/12, in which due to oversight it has been mentioned that the petitioner has submitted the forged documents for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III while the documents were submitted for appointment on the post of Patwari. Considering the averments petition is allowed and the order dated 6.2.2013 passed in M. Cr.C.No.12575/12 in paragraph 1 of description such words Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II. is omitted and substituted by Patwari.The impugned order shall modify accordingly. The Registry is directed to supply the certify copy of this order to the petitioner. A copy of thi...
Banti @ Sarvesh Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
CRR No.1172/2005 Criminal Revision No.1172/2005 28.2.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Yogesh Soni, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 20.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T.No.9/2004, whereby the charges of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC were added, whereas the case was triable for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. The prosecution's case, relating to the present revision, in short, is that, father of the deceased had lodged a typed report that the applicant and other accused persons were demanding a huge money from the deceased and therefore, he committed suicide. In case diary statement, the eye witnesses including the father of the deceased had stated that some poisonous substance was pushed in the mouth of the deceased by a syringe. After due investigation...
Afsham Ul Hug Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10496/2012 28.2.2013 Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri Nishant Datt, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 27.4.2012 in connection with Crime No.244/2011 registered at Police Station Talaiya Bhopal District Bhopal for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per fiRs.information report, it is alleged against the applicant that he also assaulted deceased Umar by knife along with other Co.accused Jamil Amma and Mohsin. It is submitted that complainant Athar Ali himself appeared before the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Bhopal and filed an application for recording the evidence under Section 164(3) of Cr.P.C.Thereafter, learned Magistrate had directed to the Superintendent of Police that statement of complainant be recorded. ...
Shri Ram Uike Vs. Shri K.K.Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Conc.P.No ::1511. / 2012 Shri Ram Uike versus K.K.Singh and others 28.02.2013. Shri S.P.Gupta for the applicant. Shri Vivek Agrawal for the non-applicants. Considering the fact that the claim of the applicant for regularization has been rejected after due scrutiny by the Scrutiny Committee, as is evident from Annexures R/1 and R/2, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. In case applicant has any grievance with regard to the manner in which his claim is considered, he may challenge the subsequent order afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, the non- applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the application dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Arvind Kumar Shah Vs. M.P.Power Generating Company Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Writ Petition No.449/2009 28.02.2013 Mr.R.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner had appeared for recruitment on the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee).The cut-off marks of the written examination were fixed as 36. The petitioner secured 26 marks in the written examination. Therefore, the petitioner did not clear the written examination. The respondents prays for and is granted one weeks' time to bring on record the result of the petitioner. The respondents shall keep the relevant record in respect of selection for recruitment on the post Junior Engineer (Trainee) on the next date of hearing. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC....
Kashi Bai Vs. Shri Arun Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 Conc. No.1545/2012 28/2/2013 Shri Ashok Pali, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Umesh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. Contending that certain directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.15505/2011 on 10.2.2012 has not been complied with, this writ petition has been filed. From the return filed by the respondents, it is seen that after taking note of the grievance of the petitioners orders have been passed as contained in Annexure R/2 and R/4 with regard to allotment of pattas and lands to the petitioner. As far as petitioner No.5 Udal Singh is concerned, Patta has been granted to him and with regard to the other petitioners it is stated that even though orders have been passed but in W.P.No.1499/2001 as order of status quo has been passed by this Court, no action can be taken and it is stated that after the said writ petition W.P.No.1499/2001 is decided, claim of the remaining petitioners shall also be considered and decision taken. Considering the aforesaid, for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »