Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Pawan Soni Vs. Smt. Rashmi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
Criminal Revision No.69/2013 17.04.2013 Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Advocate for the respondents. Heard on admission. By Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicant has challenged the order dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar in MJ.No.47/2012 whereby the maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month was granted to the respondent No.1 and a sum of Rs.1000/- each was granted to the respondents No.2 to 4. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is admitted that the respondents are wife and daughters of the applicant. At present the respondents No.2 to 4 are in custody of the respondent No.1, and therefore the applicant is liable to pay maintenance to his daughteRs.No interference can be done in the order passed in favour of the respondents No.2 to 4. So far as the maintenance granted to the respondent No.1 is concerned...
Rajan Das Burman Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
1 W.P.No.1488/2013 17/4/2013: Shri Z.M.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel appears for the respondents on advance notice. Challenging the order dated 13th May, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, this writ petition has been filed. Applicant's father Late Shri Damodar Das Burman was working as a Driver in the Railways. He opted for retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme which was allowed and he was granted voluntary retirement in the year 1988. After his voluntary retirement, petitioner's father expired on 13.5.2002. However, on 2.1.2004 a scheme was introduced by the Railway Board contemplating a provision for grant of compassionate appointment to dependents of drivers and gangman who have been voluntarily retired. On 15.7.2005 petitioner filed an application seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment in accordanc...
Ravi Shankar Vaishya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
W.P.No.4550/2012 17.4.2013 Shri Mahesh Shukla, counsel for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A.for respondents. It is submitted by Shri Jaideep Singh that Shri Nandlal Samrat, S.D.O.Singrauli is present in the Court along with the record, however he prays for a short time to file affidavit as was directed by order dated 20.3.2013. Prayer is allowed. It is submitted by Shri Samrat, S.D.O.Singrauli that the new building is still under construction where the school, namely Government High School, Harrhawa is to be shifted, however it will take nearabout three months to complete the construction of the school and for the time being the respondents have made arrangement for shifting of the school. It is also submitted by Shri Samrat that at present summer vacations are going on and new place has been chosen for temporary shifting of the school and immediately after three months the school can be shifted in the new building. It is also intimated by Shri Samrat that the summer vacations of...
Suresh Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
W.A.No.247/2013 17.04.2013 Shri Sunil Choubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. A.G.for the State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 23.01.2013 in W.P.No.462/2013, by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against an order Annexure P-4 dated 31.12.2012, informing the petitioner that he will be retiring on attaining the age of 60 yeaRs.was dismissed. It was submitted before the writ court that the appellant being a Class IV employee was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 62 yeaRs.Learned Single Judge has found that the appellant was not a Class IV employee, therefore, he was not entitled to continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years and dismissed the writ petition. In appeal, it is submitted that if the appellant is not treated as a Class IV employee, then he is entitled for all the benefits of Class-III post. But on one hand appellant is not treated as a Class IV employee and on the other hand his retiral dues as Cla...
M/S Highway Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. Chief Executive Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
W.P.No.6934/2013 17.04.2013 Shri Akash Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.3. Shri Dubey prays for a short time to seek instructions in the matter. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 18.04.2013 for consideration on ad-interim writ. However, till 18.04.2013, it is directed that the Bank Guarantee of the petitioner shall not be invoked by the respondents No.1 and 2, if already not invoked. Petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the writ petition to Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, during the couRs.of the day against acknowledgment. C.C.today. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Acting Chief Justice Judge psm...
Tripti Dubey Vs. Nitkesh @ Gudda Raghuvanshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
CRR No.120/2013 Criminal Revision No.120/2013 17.4.2013 Shri Aseem Dixit, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.5. Shri Manish Gavane, counsel for the respondent No.1 to 4. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 26.9.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T.No.43/2011, whereby the respondents No.1 to 4 were discharged from the charge of offence punishable under section 365 of IPC and remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the respondents No.1 to 4 abducted the prosecutrix and after taking her, they left her after giving a threat that she should not inform anybody about the incident. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there is a lot of difference between the offence of kidnapping and abduction. Offenc...
Sheshmani Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
WP 6959.13 Writ Petition No.6959 of 2013 (Sheshmani Singh versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and five otheRs.17-04-2013 Shri Rajmani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Petition is directed against the resolution dated 08-04-2013 passed by Gram Panchayat, Bholahra, leading to appointment of respondent No.6 as Panchayat Karmi. In view of a decision by a Division Bench of this Court in Devidayal Raikwar versus State of M.P.and others : ILR 200.M.P.1370, an appeal lies against the decision regarding appointment of Panchayat Karmi. It is held therein : 7. Sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the Adhiniyam quoted above states that every panchayat may with the previous approval of prescribed authority appoint such other officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient discharge of its duties subject to the provisions of Section 69. Section 69 of the Adhiniyam provides for appointment of Secretary of a Panchayat and Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Pa...
Pappu Sahu @ Anantram Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
1 Cr.A.No.1714 of 2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1714 of 2003 APPELLANT: Pappu alias Anantram S/o Gulabchand Sahu, Aged- 24 years, Resident- Gram Brijpuri, Police Station Rahatgarh, District Sagar (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Shri Sanjay Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/State : Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing :04. 04.2013 Date of judgment :17. 04.2013 Per: Subhash Kakade, J.(JUDGMENT) The appellant Pappu @ Anantram being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th September 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sagar under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) Act in Sessions Trial No.72/2002 ...
Dr. Ashish Chouhan Vs. Smt. Vaishali Chouhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
CRR No.1576/2011 Criminal Revision No.1576/2011 17.4.2013 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 9.8.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar in MJ.No.77/2009, whereby a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month was given to the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively with effect from the date of order. The prosecution's case, in short, is that the respondent No.1 is the wife of the applicant, whereas the respondent No.2 is daughter of the applicant. The respondents have moved an application for grant of maintenance before the trial Court with the pretext that they were ousted. The applicant demanded for dowry etc.and he was in habit to harass the respondent No.1. Ultimately, on 22.3.2009, the respondent No.1 went to her parents house at Sagar, where she delivered the respondent No.2. After making the source of income of the applicant in the appli...
Ashok Kumar Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1283/1999 Ashok Kumar. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Umakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Shri P.N. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 17th day of April, 2013) Vide judgment dated 5.5.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahdol in Criminal Case No.531/1994, the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i), Section 7(5) read with Rule 32 read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 14A read with Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as PF Act.) and sentenced for six months RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »