Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Prakash Narayan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Writ Petition No ::4253. / 2013 (s) Prakash Narayan versus State of MP and others 21.03.2013. Shri Vishal Dhagat for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Challenging the order-dated 30.1.2013 repatriating the petitioner to his parent department, this writ petition is filed. Petitioner was appointed as a Contract Teacher Class II in Janpad Panchayat Sohaural, District Satna on 28.8.2001. On 25.7.2011, petitioner was selected for appointment as a Block Academic Coordinator. In the meanwhile, he was sent on deputation as a Jan Shikshak in Jan Shiksha Kendra, Kendra High School, Bhukhar vide order Annexure P/10. This deputation was for a period of three years or until further orders and it was clearly stipulated in the terms and conditions of deputation that he can be repatriated back to his parent department. On the ground that petitioner had been working carelessly and was not discharging his duties properly in the Jan Shiksha Kendra, a show-cause noti...
M/S Vaishno Construction Company Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Writ Petition No.4462/2013 22.3.2013 Shri Prashant Chaurasiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for the State. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) The respondents be directed not to make any recovery of royalty from the petitioner for the mineral purchased by him directly from the supplieRs.(ii) That the respondents be directed not to make the recovery from the petitioner on the Selected Soil, Murram, Kankar & Gitti, etc.used by petitioner for construction of road. The respondents be further directed not to insist the petitioner to produce the royalty receipt at the time of payment of dues. (iii) That any condition stipulated in the contract to the effect that the petitioner should pay the royalty amount before payment of his bills being contrary to law be also set aside. (iv) That if any amount of royalty illegally collected from the petitioner be directed to be refunded back to him with interest @ 12% p.a.(v) Any other writ,...
Vijay Kuamr Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3480/2013 22.3.2013 Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.6428/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.36/2013 registered at P.S.Devendra Nagar, District Panna for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is the husband of complainant. Other co-accused have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is a matrimonial case, in the event of arrest chances of compromise between the parties, if any, will be diminished, therefore, applicant be enlarged on ad-interim anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and ove...
Mahesh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
1 M.C.C.No.720/2012 22.03.2013 Dr. Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents. Heard on I.A.No.6962/2012, an application for condonation of delay in filing the MCC for restoration of W.P.No.12127/2003 dismissed in default. Considering the averments made in the application as are not controverted by learned Dy. Advocate General, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the MCC is condoned. Looking to the fact that originally the Original Application was filed before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal in the year 1997, which came on transfer to this Court and registered as writ petition, and was dismissed for want of prosecution on account of non-appearance of learned counsel for the petitioner, which according to the petitioner was on account of unavoidable reasons, the MCC is allowed. Let the writ petition No.12127/2003 be restored on its original number and be listed for hearing before the appropriate Bench as...
Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Cr.R.No.4/2013 22.3.2013 Shri Anoop Singh, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant the present revision filed by the applicant Rakesh Kumar Gupta against the order dated 2.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in ST No.13/2012 is hereby dismissed being withdrawn. However, the attention of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi is invited to the fact that he has mentioned the provisions of Section 498 of I.P.C whereas if the text of the charge is seen then it is Section 498-A of I.P.C and therefore such irregularity may be rectified. Copy of the order be sent to th trial Court for information. (N.K.Gupta) Judge bina...
Pyarelal Verma Vs. Smt.Satyabhama Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Mcr.C.No.2816 o22. 03.13 None for the applicant. This case is listed for admission and consideration of the stay application. The same has been filed by the applicant/ husband being aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by I ASJ Satna in Cr.R.No.277/07 affirming the order dated 20.9.07 passed by the JMFC Satna in MJ.No.4/06 whereby the application of the applicant filed under section 125(5) of the Cr.P.C against the respondent/ wife was dismissed. The co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 24.3.08 directed the applicant to file the certified copies of some statements of evidence with a direction to list the matter in the week commencing 7.4.08 for admission but it is apparent that in last more than five yeaRs.no such copies of statements of evidence have been placed on the record by the applicant. So, on account of non-compliance of the direction of the court, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Apart the aforesaid, on perusing the impugned order along with the ave...
Deshraj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Mcr.C.No.14775 o20. 03.13 Shri Manish Awasthy, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.P.Tiwari, GA for the respondent/State. Shri Sharad Singh, counsel for the prosecutrix, namely, Babli. The applicant Deshraj as well as the prosecutrix Babli along with their child Jatin Bansal aged 1 years, are present in person, identified by their respective counsel. Heard on IA No.6622/13 an application on behalf of the applicant to implead the aforesaid Babli as respondent No.2 in the petition. Such application has been filed in compliance of some earlier direction of this court dated 15.3.13. On consideration, such IA is allowed and the applicant's counsel is directed to implead the name of said Babli as respondent No.2 on the record. With permission of the court such name has been incorporated as respondent No.2 on the record by the applicant's counsel. The same is certified accordingly. Also heard on IA No.6265/13 an application on behalf of the applicant to place the annexed affidavit of responden...
M/S Narayan Traders Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
W.P.21119/2012.(O) 22.3.2013 Shri S. Gulatee, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Sarvate, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that he has been recently being engaged by respondent no.3 and he has to file Vakalatnama . He wants two weeks' time to file reply. Prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner hence time is granted. I.R.granted earlier to continue till next date of hearing. List this petition alongwith all connected matter for analogous hearing after two weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE Ag/...
Tirath Lal Bhavedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
W.P.No.4024/2013 22.03.2013 Shri Ramnaresh Vishwakarma learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that I.A.No.4483/2013 has been filed today to remove the default. Looking to the nature of the default, I.A., stands allowed. Let the correction be done during the couRs.of the day. Also heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. It is contended that the petitioner would be entitled to grant of benefit of Kramonnati from an earlier date than the date from which he has been granted by the order dated 10.2.2005. Pointing out the discrepancy, the petitioner has made a representation before the respondents which is pending consideration. Since the representation has not yet been decided, the petitioner is required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is seen that the representation was duly received in the office of the respondents as is end...
Jageshwar Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Criminal Revision No.211/2013 22.03.2013 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State. None for the respondent No.2 though served. Heard on the question of admission. The respondent No.2 has moved a criminal complainant against the applicants for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. The learned JMFC Nagod vide order dated 7.5.2012 dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.In Criminal Revision No.102/2012 the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagod vide order dated 9.1.2013 allowed the revision and directed the learned JMFC to register the complaint. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 9.1.2013 the applicants preferred the present revision. The respondent No.2 has filed a complaint on the ground that he had the possession of the land bearing Survey No.1162 and 1164 situated at Village Mahuwakhera Tahsil Nagod. He had filed a civil suit and a temporary injunction was granted by the Civil Court. Thereafter...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »