Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 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.
Manish Chambers Vs. Smt.Nidhi Chambers Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
M.Cr.C.No.14003/2012 M.Cr.C.No.14003/2012 27.1.2014 Shri Chandrapal Singh, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent though notice is served. The applicant has challenged the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Sagar in M.J.C.No.286/2011, whereby a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month was granted to the respondent. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in criminal revision No.182/2012, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid ordeRs.the applicant has preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.According to the learned counsel for the applicant, only quantum of maintenance is under dispute. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and evidence adduced by the parties, it appears that the applicant has a house and he was having an income of Rs.12,000/- per month by rent. It was alleged that h...
Dhanraj Vs. P.S. Lalbarra Tehsil Lalbarra the State of Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Cr.A.No.207/2014 27.01.2014 Shri B.R.Vijaywar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Umesh Pandey, learned Govt. Adv for respondent-State. At the request of the appellant's counsel the case is taken out of its turn from the list of motion hearing cases. Heard on the question of admission. Having perused the impugned judgment, this appeal appears to be arguable, hence the same is admitted for final hearing. State's counsel has taken notice of this admission, hence no further notice is required in this regard. Record of the trial court be requestioned within 45 days from today and case be listed for final hearing in due course. Also heard on IA No.1461/14, appellant's application for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail as he has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 294, 506-II of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act for RI one year with fine of Rs.500 in the fiRs.count while RI for one year with fine of Rs.2000 separately in second and...
M/s Bpl Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
- 1 -1 VATA No.15/2012 27/1/2014 : Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. This appeal was admitted on 18.7.2012 for considering the following substantial questions of law :- "Whether the order passed by the Board in holding that discount allowed to retailers as per ordinary trade practice of the appellant by way of credit notes as not deductable from sale price is perveRs.in law and on facts and contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in IFB Industries LTD.versus State of Kerala - (2012) 20 STJ285?." Appellant herein was assessed for tax under the Commercial Tax Law for assessment year 2002-2003 and the only question involved in this appeal is as to whether the discount allowed by the appellant herein a retail dealer as per Ordinary trade practice by way of credit note cannot be subjected to deduction from the sale price of the vehicle or not?. It was the case of the revenue that without indicating the re...
Smt. Rukmani Devi Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Give ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
W.P.No.3976/2012 27.01.2014 Shri Sanjay Ram Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Heard counsel for the parties. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondent that the relief claimed in the writ petition has been virtually rendered infructuous. Inasmuch as, the earlier tender process which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition was for limited duration for financial year 2013-14, to expire on 28.2.2014. That period is almost exhausted. As a result, the respondents have now decided to initiate fresh tender process for the next financial year 2014-15 commencing from 1st March, 2014. This petition cannot be used as fulcrum to stultify the said process. That has to proceed in accordance with law. For, the petitioner has not challenged the new tender process. The fact that the Respondents have commenced fresh tender process cannot be the basis to expand the scope of relief cla...
Priya Singh Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwa Vidyalaya Judgement Gi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Writ Petition No :: 20545 / 2013 Priya Singh versus Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya and others 27.01.2014. Shri R.N.Tiwari for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents even though represented by counsel and time granted since 29.11.2013 to file reply. Shri Tiwari submits that as the respondents are not filing any reply, matter be heard in view of the specific directions issued by this Court on 13.1.2014. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the matter is being heard and orders are being passed after perusal of the records. Petitioner herein was a student who appeared in the Fourth Semester Examination conducted by Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, for B Pharmacy Course. Petitioner appeared in the 4th Semester Examination conducted sometime in April-May, 2013 and according to the petitioner she is a meritorious student and had received very good marks throughout and in two of the papers Pharmaceutics IV (Pharmaceutical Engineering II).subject Code PY401; and Pharma...
Shrikant Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Writ Petition No :: 4992 / 2013 Shrikant Tiwari and others versus State of MP and others 27.01.2014. Ms.Nirmala Raikwar for the petitioneRs.Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate, for State. Shri Prashant Singh and Shri M. Verma for respondent No.2. Shri D.N.Shukla for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. Petitioners were students who was granted admission to the B.Ed CouRs.in the Academic Session 2007-08, and contending that the result of the petitioners is not being declared by the University, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that this is one of the case where the recognition and affiliation granted to the Institute in question i.e Shri Mahaveer Shiksha College of Education, Rewa, was cancelled; recognition was never granted to the Institute in question; and, the Institute without even grant of recognition admitted the students. The matter came to this Court and thereafter travelled to the Supreme Court in a SLP filed. The Supreme Cour...
Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Barkatullah University Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Judg ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
Writ Petition No :: 13991 / 2013 Sanjeev Kumar & others versus Barkatullah University and another 24.01.2014. Shri Praveen Chourasiya for the petitioneRs.Shri Mahendra Pateriya for respondent No.1. Shri Kamlesh Mishra for respondent No.2. Challenging the notification dated 31.7.2013, passed by the Barkatullah University declaring the petitioners as failed in the subject of B.P.Ed couRs.conducted, petitioners have filed this writ petition. Petitioners were candidates who had appeared in the B.P.Ed Examination conducted for the Academic Session 2010-11 by the Barkatullah University. Petitioners were students of respondent No.2 NPG Mahavidyalaya. It seems that petitioners appeared in all the theory papers that were conducted by the University, but when their results were declared it was found that they are absent in the Practical Examination and, therefore, they were declared as not passed. Grievance of the petitioners is that the Institute/respondent No.2 did not permit them to appear in...
Dhruvdas Kolare Vs. President Central Madhya Pradesh GramIn Bank Judge ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
W.P.No.648/2014 Dhruvdas Kolare versus President Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank & ORS.27/01/2014 Shri Ravi Shankar Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was an employee, who was working in the establishment of respondent/Bank. It seems that the petitioner was working continuously as a Daily Wages Employee since 2004 and according to the petitioner, by an oral order passed in August, 2011, termination of services of the petitioner was ordered. The termination is led by an industrial dispute before the authority i.e.Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chhindwara. Records indicate that conciliation proceedings were held and vide Annexure-P6, the conciliation officer recorded failure of the conciliation and forwarded a report to the Central Government in accordance with the requirement of Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1967. It seems that the matter is pending since 12.11.2012 and neither any action is taken in the matter by the Gove...
Roshan Barman Vs. Union of India Judgement Given By: Hon'ble the Chief ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
---1--- W.P.No.4953/2011 27.1.2014 Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents/State. Heard counsel for the parties. This petition takes exception to the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 8.10.2004 in O.A.No.82/2003 and in Review Application No.6/2010 dated 22.2.2011. This writ petition, no doubt, has been filed in the year 2011, after rejection of the review application. The review application was rejected by the learned Tribunal on the reasoning that the same was filed after six yeaRs.without showing any sufficient cause. That finding of the Tribunal cannot be taken exception to. As a result, the order passed in the review application is unexceptionable. Once that order is upheld, it should necessarily follow that the original order passed by the Tribunal dated 8.10.2004, cannot be allowed to be assailed by the petitio...
BasmotIn Dhurve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
W.P.No.17278/2012 27/01/2014 Shri Kabir Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. The writ petition is taken into for consideration on admission, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and finally disposed of. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner's husband was Assistant Teacher and posted in Tribal Welfare Department, Balaghat. His initial appointment was on probation as Assistant Teacher in the year 1988. He was paid for fixed salary of Rs.300/-. However, thereafter his services were regularized after completion of probation. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite her husband being entitlement for payment of regular salary even though he was on probation, the said benefit has not been extended to him though there is a binding judgment rendered by this Court in the series of cases and the lead case is being Madhukant Yadu versu...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »