Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Gopal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
Criminal Revision No.1886/1999 2.5.2013 Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.P.Tiwari, GA for the State. Heard finally. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by judgment dated 23.12.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullahganj, District Sihore in Criminal Appeal No.100/97 affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by JMFC, Nasrullahganj vide order dated 29.11.1997 passed by in Criminal Case No.140/96 whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 456 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I.for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he does not want to press the conviction recorded by the Courts below. However, the incident had taken place in the year 1996, 16-17 years have elapsed by now, the applicant has suffered the jail sentence of about 12, the ends of justice would be met, if the applicant is sentenced for the ...
Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Shri Ajay Nath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
Rakesh Kumar Pandey versus Shri Ajay Nath & Others Conc. No.1094 2. 5.2013: Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel respondents. Considering the fact that the respondents after considering the claim of petitioner for regularization has rejected the claim, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that persons appointed after the petitioner have been regularized. In the writ petition the only direction issued was to consider the case of petitioner for grant of regularization in accordance to the policies and circular of the State Government. Respondents have referred the claim of petitioner to the Screening Committee for regularization based on the guidelines and circular issued on 8.2.2008 and 16.5.2007 and the claim has been rejected. Under such circumstances it is not a fit case where action for contempt can be initiated. If, the petitioner has any grievance with r...
R.P. Cheepa Vs. S.C. Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
Con.C.No.1653/2012 02/05/2013 Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the reply submitted by the respondents, in case the applicant feels that the action taken for sending him on deputation was not correct that also without his consent, he may challenge the same afresh in accordance with law. not as the applicant is released to join on his original place of posting, it is not appropriate for this Court to initiate action for contempt against the respondents. However, if the applicant feels that the order of the State Government has not been properly implemented, instead it is modified to that of deputation, petitioner may challenge the same afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the application for contempt is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Rakesh Pandey Vs. Ram Kumar Sewayat Pujari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
M.A. No. 1246 of 2013 2.5.2013 Shri J.L. Mishra, learned counsel for appellant. Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on caveat. Since the contesting party has entered appearance, with the consent of learned counsel for parties the matter is heard finally. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r). Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the instance of defendant is directed against the order dated 3.4.2013 passed by VI Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No. 8 A/2012; whereby, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff has been allowed and the defendant/ appellant has been prevented from causing any interference in peaceful possession of suit property and against alienation of suit property. Suit by respondent No. 1/plaintiff is for declaration, permanent injunction and for cancellation of saledeed dated 11.10.2010 in respect of t...
Shyam Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
1 Cr.A. No.1056/1996 996HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1056 / 1996 APPELLANT : Shyam S/o. Nanhe Ahirwal, R/o. Village Gunji, P.S. Hindoriya, District Damoh (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellant by Shri Mukesh Mishra, Advocate. Respondent/State by Shri Pushpraj Singh, Public Prosecutor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (02.05.2013) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.1996 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.1/1994 convicting the appellant under Section 304(Part-1) IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer 10 years RI and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default further RI of 6 months, the appellant has taken shelter of this Court by prefer...
Smt.Sushila Bai Sahu Vs. I.S. Dani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
1 Conc. No.4028/2005 2/5/2013: Shri Manot Rajak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents. This contempt application is pending for more than 8 years and the complaint made in this contempt application is that an order passed on 8.4.2003 in W.P.No.4622/2001 has not been complied with. The order in question was passed in the writ petition more than 10 years back and till date it has not been complied with. Every time it is reported that the officer concerned has changed and therefore, the action is not taken. However, from the reply filed by respondent No.4. Shri Brijesh Kumar Patel, the then District Education Officer, Narsinghpur, it is clear that the Collector, Narsinghpur and the District Education Officer who were holding the post at the relevant time when notices were issued on this contempt application and when proceedings were dropped on 20.1.2004 in the earlier Contempt Petition No.491/2003, are responsible for obeying the orde...
Ku. Vandana Athneriya Vs. Dr. A.N.Mittal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
Conc. 460/2010 2/5/2013: Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the order passed by respondents as contained in Annexure R/1 dated 16.12.2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization for the reasons indicated therein, no further action is required to be taken. In case petitioner has any grievance with regard to the manner in which his claim has been considered, he may file fresh proceedings in accordance to law. Finding respondents to have taken action, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the application disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Shri Ram Udyog Vs. Shri Ajat Shatru Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
Shriram Udyog versus Shri Ajat Shatru Shrivastava & Anr. Conc. No.477 2. 5.2013: Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Himanshu Mishra, counsel for respondents. Interalia contending that contrary to certain directions issued by this Court on 30.6.2011 in W.P.No.3912/2011 a show-cause notice Annexure C-4 and proceedings under Section 33(3) read with Section 33(4) of the M.P.Krishi Upaj Mandi Ahiniyam, 1972 is initiated, petitioner has filed this application for contempt. On notice being issued, respondents have filed the reply and it is pointed out by Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate that in the writ petition it was the case of petitioner that action is being taken against him under Section 33(1)(f) of the Mandi Adhiniyam and as conviction is not conducted and only FIR lodged against him, the provision of Section 33(1)(f) is not attracted. This court accepted the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and quashed t...
Mangal Prasad Kushwaha Vs. Shri Vijay Singh Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
Mangal Prasad Kushwaha versus Shri Vijay Singh Verma & ORS.Conc. No.1542 2. 5.2013: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Considering the fact that the claim of petitioner for grant of pension has been rejected merely on the ground that petitioner has only completed 8 years and 6 months on regular service and is not entitled to grant pension, I am not inclined to initiate any action for contempt. If, petitioner feels that consideration has not been properly made, petitioner may challenge the same afresh in accordance to law. In view of aforesaid finding no case made out for initiating action for contempt, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Shivraj Vs. Shri I.S. Dhadi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
Con.C.No.1580/2012 02/05/2013 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Byankatesh Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition was disposed of with an innocuous order directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.2.2012 as expeditiously as possible but not later than 60 days. not from the return filed by the respondents, it is seen that the petitioner's case was referred to the Medical Board and vide Annexure-R7, the Medical Board communicated to the competent authority on 14.8.2012 with a remark that the Board is of the opinion that the petitioner is unfit for service due to 'partial red green blindness'. It is stated that in view of the report, no further action is required to be taken and respondents have not come out with a case that the representation is deemed to be rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no order on the representation is passed and, therefore, he sought fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »