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.
Smt. Pushpa Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
1 W.P.No.7319/2013 Writ Petition No.7319/2013 08/01/2014 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. The issue as raised herein as to whether the petitioner, an Anganwadi Worker, has a right to serve beyond 60 years of age, is no more res-integra and has been settled at rest by the decision in W.P.No.13320 of 2009(s) (Smt. Santosh Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.and bunch of petitions by order dated 04-03-2010 wherein it was held :- 13. The Ministry of Woman and Child Development Department of the State Government issued instructions on 27.5.2006 which lays down therein the service conditions of the Anganwadi Workers and Sahayika. The circular issued on 27.5.2006 was in supersession of the earlier instructions issued on 29.1.2001, 2.3.2002, 27.5.1996 and 12.9.2002. Under the said instructions the State Government laid down the criteria for appointment of Anganwadi Worker/Sahayika, preference f...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Geeta Sen Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
M.Cr.C.No.14563/2012 M.Cr.C.No.14563/2012 8.1.2014 Shri S.D.Khan, G.A.for the State/applicant. Heard on admission. The State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.9.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna in S.T.No.93/2010, whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the deceased Pushpa Bai was wife of Bhagwan Das (P.W.3) and the respondents were the relatives to Bhagwan Das. Marriage of the deceased Pushpa Bai took place 12-13 years prior to the incident. The respondents were in habit to make allegations against the deceased that she had illicit relations with someone at village Girwari and therefore, on the date of the incident, a quarrel took place between the deceased and the respondents. The respondents told her that if she has such an ego then, she may commit suicide and therefore, she...
Siddhmuni Yadav Vs. the State of M.P. Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1936 OF2003Siddhmuni Yadav. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.8267 OF2003Amarkumar Verma. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri J.P.Sanghi, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ajay Shukla, Advocate for the appellant Siddhumuni Yadav and the applicant Amarkumar Verma. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 8th day of January, 2014) Both the matters are related with a common judgment, and therefore, the same are hereby decided with a common judgment.2. Vide judgment dated 13.11.2003 passed by the Special Judge under Essential Commodities Act, Shahdol in Special Case No.6/2002, the appellant Siddhmuni Yadav, was convicted for the offence puni...
Jamuna Prasad Paroha Vs. Shri S.K. Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Conc. Case No :: 226 / 2013 Jamuna Prasad Paroha versus Shri S.K.Singh and others 08.01.2014. Shri M.K.Agrawal for the applicant. Shri Hitendra Singh for the non-applicants. Complaining dis-obedience and breach of an order passed by this Court on 30.11.2012 in Writ Petition No.3984/2009, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Applicant/petitioner was granted promotion vide order- dated 18.12.2009 on the post of Assistant Revenue Officer. When the said order was not complied with and he was not permitted to join, the writ petition was filed. The petition was disposed of on the basis of a statement made by the respondent/Corporation that applicant has been granted promotion and he will be given all the benefits accruing out of the promotion. However, when promotion was not granted, this contempt application has been filed. Now, from the reply filed by the non-applicants, it is seen that the promotion granted to the applicant on the post of Assistant Revenue O...
Mukesh Patil Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
M.Cr.C.No.16307/2013 08.01.2014 Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate for the respondent/Economic Offence Bureau. This is an application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.for offence under Section 420, 120B, 467 and 468 of IPC and section 3(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with Crime No.14/2011 registered at Police Station State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau, Bhopal. According to prosecution during period of 26 th July, 2009 to 2011, petitioner formed a false society and purchased agricultural land of about 21.2 acres from farmers without paying money to them and created colony on it with dishonest intention. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 26/06/2013 and having no criminal past. There is no likelihood of early conclusion trial in this matter. Learned counsel for respondent submits that allegations are very serious and petitioner is the main accused ...
Jai Prakash Namdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
W.P.No.1887/2013 Jai Prakash Namdeo versus State of MP & ORS.08/01/2014 Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Devashish, learned Panel Lawyer for the Respondents/ State. Challenging the order Annexure-P1 dated 18th of June, 2010 passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Chhatarpur, terminating the services of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Even though, notices have been issued to the respondents, but they have not filed any reply. However, in the previous round of litigation between the parties with regard to the same cause of action, a reply was filed by the respondents before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.585/2010 as is evident from Annexure-P9 and the facts of the case are evident from this reply. That being so, no further reply from the State Government is necessary and the matter can be heard and decided based on the reply filed in Writ Appeal No.585/2010 itself. Petitioner participated in the process of selection that was h...
Hdfc Ergo Geneaql Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Smt. Vasanta Ahirwar Judge ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
W.P.No.21418/2012 (H.D.F.C.ERGO General Insurance Co.LTD.versus Smt. Vasanta Ahirwar and others ) 08.01.2014 Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri S. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 06.12.2012 passed in MJ.No.02/2012 by the M.A.C.T.Bijawar District Chhatarpur whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.for amendment of their written statement and the application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C.have been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim had initially been filed by the claimants against IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company which was impleaded as non-applicant No.3 in the claim petition. It is submitted that subsequently, during the interim stage in the claim, the claimants amended the claim petition by deleting ...
Shobharam Bhaware Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
1 W.P.No.1339/2013 Shobharam Bhaware versus State of M.P.& ORS.08.01.2014 Shri A.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions we...
Halke Bhai Vs. Hukum Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
1 W.P.No.5252/2011 Halke Bhai versus Hukum Singh & ORS.08.01.2014 Shri A.D.Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Amrit Ruprah learned counsel for respondent no.3. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Begumganj, District Raisen in Claim Case No.14/2009, whereby the petitioner's right to adduce evidence has been closed on account of the fact that the petitioner failed to produce his witnesses on several dates. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing on merits, submits that the petitioner be given a last opportunity to produce his witnesses. He also submits that as there was lapse on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner is willing to pay reasonable cost on being so allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 Insurance Co., per contra, while vehemently opposing the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner ins...
Ramaji Deshmukh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Writ Petition No.173 / 2014 ( Ramji Deshmukh & others . Vs..State of M.P.& others ) 08-01-2014 Shri Amit Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Akash Chaudhary, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondents. The only claim made by the petitioners in the present petition is that the benefit extended to the persons like the petitioners who have retired prior to 01-01-2006 are to be granted and the consequent revision of pay and pension is to be done. The scheme has already been made as back as on 10th September, 2008 but the same is not implemented as a decision is not taken by the respondents in this respect. On every occasion when the representation is made, the petitioners are informed that a decision is required to be taken and the matter is pending consideration before the appropriate department. It is also submitted that the petitioneRs.case is identical to those persons who have been extended benefits. Since the rules have already been made, it is only the adminis...
- ‹ Prev
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- Next ›
- Last »