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.
Tarun Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
1 M. Cr.C.No.13354/12. 21.3.2013 . Shri Pradeep Naveria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the respondent/ State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the entire case of S.T.No.207/12, pending in the Court 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, arising out of Crime No.85/12 registered at P.S.Bairagarh District Bhopal against the applicant for the offence of Section 306 of IPC. As per FIR and investigation papers the applicant is under prosecution of Section 306 of IPC with respect of the offence of the abatement to commit. According to the case his wife committed suicide within seven years from the date of marriage. Initially the case was argued at length for admission and allowing the petition but in view of the provision of Section 113-A of Evidence Act and Section 498-A of IPC r/w Section 306 and 107 of IPC on making some query from the counsel instead to argue furt...
Dasai Prasad Kachhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
W.P.No.3791/2013 21/3/2013 : Shri Manot Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner has retired from service on 31.8.2011. At the relevant time he was working as a regular employee in the department. Grievance of the petitioner is that after his retirement post retiral benefits like leave encashment credit and other benefits has not been granted. Petitioner also submits that benefit of second krammonati has not been paid. When representation submitted did not yield any positive result, this writ petition has been filed. Considering the fact that the claim of the petitioner is yet to be adjudicated and decided by the competent authority, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with relevant documents respondents No.2, 3 and 4 shall consider the claim of the petitioner and decide it in accordance to law by a speaking ...
M.P.S.E.B. and ors Vs. Arvind and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
F.A. No.257/2003 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.257/2003 APPELLANTS 1 M.P. State Electricity Board DEFENDANTS through Chairman, Jabalpur.2. Junior Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, Ajaygarh Branch, District Panna.3. Sub Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, Panna Branch, Panna, District Panna.4. Assistant Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, Panna Branch, District Panna. -Versus- RESPONDENTS:1. Shri Arvind s/o Ramsajiwan Kurmi PLAINTIFFS (Minor) through guardian Mst. Priya w/o Shankar Kurmi, R/o Ranipur; Tahsil Ajaygarh District Panna.2. Priya w/o Shankar Kurmi, R/o village Ranipur; Tahsil Ajaygarh District Panna. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, Advocate for the appellants. Shri L.N. Sakale, Advocate for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT {21032013} Feeling aggrieved by ...
Smt. Ramkali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3552/2013 21.3.2013 Shri Sameer Seth, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Pushpraj Singh, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.6555/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.171/13 registered at P.S.Jahangirabad, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. She is mother-in-law of deceased, who is alleged to have committed suicide at her parental house, thereafter, her parents lodged false report against the applicant. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, her reputation will be tarnished, therefore, she be released 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 pa...
Babinder Singh Khanduja Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2153/2013 21.3.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate with Shri Deepak Singh for the objector. Learned Sr.Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have already been released on ad- interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2013 and the applicants did not misuse the liberty granted to them. Learned counsel for the State and the objector have vehemently opposed the application. Since applicants have already been released on ad- interim anticipatory bail by this Court and there is no report that they misused the liberty granted to them, the order dated 22.2.2013 is hereby made absolute for a period of 60 days only. In the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may apply for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules. (G.S.Solanki) Judge P...
Sheela Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
W.P.No.4167/2013 21/3/2013 : Shri Sanjay Ram Tamrakar with Shri Vinot Mishra and Ghanshyam Burman, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioners were working in the School Education Department and was employed in the Jain Kanya Higher Secondary/ Primary School, Jawaharganj, Jabalpur. On the ground that benefit of revision of pay under the 5th Pay Commission is not granted to them, they filed a writ petition before this Court being WPS No.3556/2005 and vide order 25.3.2005 Annexure P/1 the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner and take action. When nothing was done, petitioners approached this Court by filing certain contempt applications. However, the same was disposed of in view of the fact that the original writ petition was disposed of on 25.3.2005 and contempt itself was initiated after a period of more than five years granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate fr...
Radhoo Lal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
Cr.A.No.2436/1997 21.3.2013 Shri Prashant Kohade, Counsel for the appellant. Shri A Shukla, Dy.Govt.Advocate for the State. Heard finally. Appellant Raddulal has been convicted R.I.for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- on each count for offence punishable under Section 363 and 366 of I.P.C. by Second Additional Session Judge, Mandla in S.T. No.74/97 on 12.11.1997.2. The facts of the case in nut shell are that on 8.3.1997 at around 11:00 a.m. when Balwant Singh and his wife had gone to Udaypur they had left their younger daughter and prosecutrix at home. When they returned back prosecutrix was not at home. So the parents of prosecutrix lodged a missing persons complaint on 10.3.1997 at Police Station Bijabadi and case No.1/97 was registered. During investigation the prosecutrix was found in the custody of the appellant and appellant was arrested and charges u/s 363/366 and 376 of I.P.C. was framed against the appellant. Appellant and prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. After due in...
Shashi Kant Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2588/2013 21.3.2013 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL , for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.14/2013 registered at Police Station Rajendragram, District Anooppur for offence punishable under Section 409, 420, 465, 471, 120-B/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 12.2.2013. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant was not the drawing disbursing officer. He also submitted that one Anurag Verma, Accountant was the authorised officer for transaction with bank. He filed Annexure-A/2 in support of his contention. Trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the...
M.P.E.Board Jabalpur and ors Vs. Smt.Urmila Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
F.A. No.822/2004 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.822/2004 APPELLANT 1 Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Defendant No.2 through its Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Rampur, Jabalpur (M.P.) 2. Executive Engineer, O/o Divisional Office, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Balaghat.3. Assistant Engineer (Incharge Officer) MPSEB Manegaon Tah. Lanji Balaghat 4. Line men (Incharge Gram Tedva) MPSEB Tah. Lanji Balaghat. -Versus- RESPONDENTS:1. Smt. Urmila Bai wd/o Late Bhavram Plaintiffs Caste-Kunbi, R/o Gram Tedva, Tah. Lanji, Balaghat.2. Ku. Maya 3. Ku. Swati 4. Ku. Malti 5. Sunil Kumar No.2 to 5 are minot under guardianship of mother Smt. Urmila Bai w/o Late Bhavram R/o Gram Tedva, Tah. Kiranapur, Balaghat.6. Madhorao s/o Ghasi Ram caste Kuni R/o Dorli, Tah. Lanji, Balaghat.7. State of M.P. through Collector, Balaghat. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Vivek Rusia and Miss Trupt...
Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
W.P.No.21881/2012 21/3/2013 Shri Sanjoy Roy, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking grant of two advance increments in accordance with the provisions of fundamental rule 22-D. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1104/01 State of M.P.versus Dayaram Patidar decided on 4/10/02 had granted benefit to similarly situated employees and following the same in W.P.(s) No.1568/04 , orders have been passed to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Dayaram Patidar (supra) . Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are directed to decide the claim of the petitioners also in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Dayaram Patidar (supra) and confer the benefit to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to emphasize, that in case, respondents find that petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »