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.
Sukhendra Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.2061/2012 Sukhendra Verma VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri V.K.Dubey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 5th day of April, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC vide judgment dated 3.3.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Satna (Shri S.K.Shrivastava) in criminal case No.3910/2008 and sentenced for 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. In criminal appeal No.121/2012 vide judgment dated 21.9.2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satna dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision.2. The prosecution's case...
Ku. Sushma JaIn Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Conc Case No :713. / 2013 Ku. Sushma Jain versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 05.04.2013. Shri Sanjay Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, GA for the respondents. The applicant herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the applicant is that the benefits of 5th pay commissions recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000 (V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra) the petition of the applicant was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the applicant. not the grievance of the applicant is that the said benefit is not being granted even though order was passed in the year 2004/2005 Inter alia contending that the benefits accruing to the applicant by virtue of the acceptance of the 5th...
Vijay Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
W.P.No.14826/2011 05/04/2013 Smt. Vandana Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Pushpendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Under similar circumstances with regard to the similar relief claimed, on 5.1.2012 W.P.No.11986/2011 has been disposed of in following terms : The claim made in this petition is for grant of installment facility to repay the loan taken by the petitioners from Respondent No.2 for which Revenue Recovery Certificate has been issued. It is contended that looking to the financial condition of the petitioneRs.they are not in a position to deposit the amount of loan in lumpsum and, therefore, a facility of installment for payment of loan amount be granted to him. Opposing the claim of petitioneRs.a return has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 contending inter alia that the loan was taken in the year 1998 and not a single installment has been paid by the petitioneR...
Nisar Ahmad Vs. Abdul Hafij
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
C.R.No.147/2007 05.04.2013 As none appeared for the applicants on 26.10.2007, the revision was dismissed. However, on making of an application for restoration, the revision was restored. The order sheets indicate that the reply was filed by respondent and with the reply judgment and decree has been placed on record to indicate that the suit filed in the trial Court was dismissed on 20th December, 2010. It appears that there was some sort of compromise in between the parties and a compromise deed was recorded on 07.01.2011. Since nobody is present today to prosecute the revision. In view of the aforesaid fact and for want of prosecution, the revision is dismissed. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Naieem Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 Criminal Appeal No.1763/2005 Naieem State of M.P.5.4.2013 Shri S.C.Datt, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA for respondent/State. I.A.No.6754/2013 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail This is 6th application filed on behalf of appellant Naieem for suspension of sentence and release on bail. Learned counsel for appellant submits; (I) that appellant is in custody for more than 10 years and this appeal is of 2005 which would take sometime for hearing. (ii) On the basis of the same set of evidence other accused persons were acquitted while the appellant has been convicted. The evidence in the case is self-contradictory. As per evidence, findings recorded by the trial Court, the appellant had suffered injuries, but there is no explanation on the part of the prosecution in respect of the injuries found on the person of the appellant. It is submitted that looking to the long period of custody of appellant, he may be released o...
Buddhsen Patel Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Conc Case No :686. / 2013 Buddhsen Patel and others versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 05.04.2013. Shri Sanjay Tamrakar, counsel for the applicants. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, GA for the respondents. The applicants herein are working as teacher and their grievance is that the benefits of 5th pay commissions recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000 (V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra).the petition of the applicants was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the applicants. not the grievance of the applicants is that the said benefit is not being granted even though order was passed in the year 2004/2005 Inter alia contending that the benefits accruing to the applicants by virtue of the acceptance of the 5...
Raj Kumar Jatav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
W.P.No.6177/2013 05.04.2013 Shri Pramod Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General along with Shri R.S.Parmar, T.I., Police Station, Gorakhpur and Shri Sushil Patel, T.I., Police Station, Kotwali, Jabalpur are present. It is intimated by Shri Kaurav that the petitioner's brother Sonu Jatav has been arrested by police of Police Station, Gorakhpur in an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and he has been sent to judicial custody. In view of the aforesaid statement made by Shri Kaurav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of this petition with a liberty to move appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Prayer is allowed. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (B.D.Rathi) Judge Judge psm...
Sandeep Kothari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 W.P.No.15563/2012 5/4/2013: Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenging the order dated 14.8.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Balaghat in directing for externment of the petitioner from the area in question in accordance to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and the appellate order passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur rejecting the appeal, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Even though various grounds are raised, one of the main ground canvassed is that proceeding for externment has been initiated because of petitioner's involvement in about 11 cases. It is pointed out that in most of the cases as is indicated in the show cause notice, petitioner has been acquitted, but as this acquittal are not taken note of, the action is unsustainable. That apart, it is pointed out that along with show cause notice other material forming part of the reason for exter...
Vishal Singh Vs. Barkatullah University Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1...W.P.No.12343 o05. 04.2013 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl. A.G.for the respondent No.1 Shri K.K.Singh, Counsel for respondent No.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute in the present case is short one. Petitioners had taken admission in B.P.Ed couRs.for the academic session 2007-08 in the month of September,2007. At the relevant time the regulations of the NCTE of 2006 were in force providing criteria of 50% marks for the basic qualification i.e.graduation and physical education while the aforesaid criteria was modified vide notification dated 27.11.2007 giving affect from the date of their publication in the official gazettee. It is submitted that the preamble of this notification provides The Norms and Standards of various teacher training courses were subsequently revised and notified. It has been decided to consolidate and bring these Regulations under one notification for the sake of clarity and bette...
Kamlendra Bghel Vs. Authorised Officer Gruh Finance Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
W.P.No.5073/2013 Kamlendra Baghel Authorised Officer Gruh Finance Ltd & another 5.4.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vivek Agarwal, G.A., for respondent no.2. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 4.3.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in S.A.No.-Unregd./13 I No.128/26/27.02.13, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as pre-mature. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the appeal was not pre-mature and the DRT ought to have entertained the appeal and could have considered the grievance of the petitioner, as the action of respondent was totally unjustified. From the perusal of the record, we find that against the judgment dated 4.3.2013 petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. As the petitioner is having efficacious alternative and statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate Tribunal, at this juncture, w...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »