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. Savitri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Writ Petition No.13368/2013. 6.1.2014. Shri Z.M.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State of M.P.and its functionaries. There is no report regarding service of notice on respon- dents no.5 to 8. Petitioner, mother of Chhatrapal Singh, has filed this writ petition, seeking direction to respondents no.1 to 4 to produce him before this Court alleging that he has been abducted by re- spondents no.5 to 8 on or about 20.1.2013. It is contended that respondent no.8-Devki @ Disha, when living in the house of petitioner as wife of her son Chhatrapal Singh, was approached by respondents no.5 to 7, stating that for- mer husband of respondent no.8 had lodged a complaint in the police station and therefore, petitioner's son Chhatrapal Singh is required to be taken, so that the matter can be compromised. It is urged that when Chhatrapal Singh did not return, the petitioner lodged a complaint with Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh on 14.2.20...
Shri Pramod Tamrakar Vs. Taher Ali Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Ju ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Writ Petition No.10425/2013. 6.1.2014. Shri H.K.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Order-dated 18.2.2013 passed by VIII Civil Judge Class II District Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.36-A/2013 is being assailed vide this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; where- by, an application under Order 6 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by petitioner, was dismissed. The suit at the instance of respondents/plaintiffs is for evic- tion as well as arrears of rent under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The application under Order 6 Rule 1 to 4 CPC was filed by petitioner/defendant, seek- ing direction from the Court to respondents/plaintiffs to incorpo- rate in their plaint certain pleadings in respect of co-ownership of the suit property. Trial Court, after taking into consideration that there was specific pleading in the suit plaint of being co-owner of the prop- erty and observing that ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sushil Kumar Patel Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
CRA No.3258/2013 Criminal Appeal No.3258/2013 6.1.2014 Shri S.D.Khan, G.A.for the State/appellant. Heard on admission. Vide judgment dated 10.4.2013, the learned JMFC, Maihar in criminal case No.889/2011 acquitted the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under sections 456 and 354 of IPC. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 13.7.2011, at about 10.30 p.m.in the night, the prosecutrix was lying on her bed in her house, situated at village Jhukehi, Police Station Amdera, District Satna. The respondent came inside the house by jumping the boundary wall and thereafter, he tried to outrage her modesty. He tried to push the prosecutrix from her bed and snatched her Saree. Thereafter, the prosecutrix gave a kick to the respondent and therefore, he ran away from the spot. The prosecutrix told the entire story to Lallu Kol and Bhura Patel and thereafter, she lodged the FIR on the next day. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecutrix, it appears that the prose...
Ganessh Nagwani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
1 W.P.No.22269/2013. (Ganesh Nagwani & another versus State of M.P.& otheRs.06/01/2014 Shri Sanjay Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PL for the respondents/State on advance notice. This petition is directed for the limited relief in the form of direction to Superintendent of Police, Katni to investigate himself on the report submitted by the petitioners as provided under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C., on the ground that the respondent No.4 is not taking any action in the report/ complaint filed by the petitioneRs.In the opinion of this court, the petition is misconceived. There is nothing on record to suggest in action on the part of the respondents which may warrant interference by this Court under its extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction as enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A complete procedure is laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure where the FIR lodge under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., is processed, investigation is conduct...
Aneesh Ahmad Qureshi Vs. Van Parikshetra Adhikari, Lougur Samanya, Bal ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Writ Petition No.14240/2013 06/01/2014 Shri Ajay Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 19.9.2011 passed in Case No.06/2009 Industrial Disputes Act Reference by the Labour Court, Balaghat. It is contended that the petitioner, who was engaged as a Security Guard in the month of January, 1987, was removed from the post without there being any justified reason, without conducting any enquiry, without following the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act whereas he has worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. Such a termination of the petitioner from service was bad in law. Upon making claim in this respect, the appropriate government made a reference to the Labour Court where the statements of claim were filed by the parties concerned and after recording the evidence, the order was passed by the Labour Court rejecting the claim ...
Uma Shankar Tiwari Vs. Sanjay Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri J ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
C.P.No.1432/2012 (U.S.Tiwari versus Sanjay Singh and another) 06.01.2014 Shri Neeraj Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.597/2011 dated 20.8.2013 and modified by order dated 4.9.2013 has passed the following directions:- (a) The appellants are allowed to make payment of arrears which have fallen due to the respondent as per order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the State Government by which it was ordered by the School Education Department that all the respondents be paid arrears from 1.4.2000 to 9.12.2010 as per 5th Pay Commission but to the extent of 50% and the aforesaid payment shall be subject to the decision in the pending SLP and present writ appeal. (b) The instalments fallen due in 2012-13, i.e., two instalments, shall be paid by the appellants to all the teachers who have not been paid the arrears in compliance of the order dated ...
Gokul Prasad Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
1 W.P.No.19802/2013 6/1/2014 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents State Government. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.9.09 by which the State Govt. has decided to close down the Library and Commuity Centres running in various villages. Questions involved in these writ petition and tenability of similar action has already been considered and decided by this Court by a common order passed in W.P.No.590/2011(s).W.P.14312/2011(s).W.P.12477/2009 (s) W.P.17/2010 (s) and W.P.No.17445/2010 (s) on 15.9.2011. After considering similar prayer, the following directions were issued by this Court :- "Accordingly, taking note of the orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the writ petitions and writ appeals as indicated hereinabove, all these writ petitions are allowed and disposed of with the following directions:- Respondents are directed to take steps for continuing the petitioners and for ensuring their...
Smt. Chandan Bala Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
MCC No.1047/2013 06.01.2014 Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance copy. Though there is inordinate delay in filing the MCC for restoration of W.P.No.3167/2005, but on the affidavit filed by the counsel, it is stated that nobody could appear before the Court on second round, as a prayer for adjournment was made on the fiRs.round. The Advocate appearing in the fiRs.round was under the impression that time as sought was allowed and such information was given to the arguing counsel. This being the reason, without intimation to the counsel in appropriate manner, the writ petition was dismissed, but this fact was not communicated to the petitioners or to the applicants. That being so, inordinate delay in filing the MCC for restoration is sought to be condoned. Though notices of this I.A.have not been issued to the respondents, but learned counsel for the respondents on advance copy seriously opposes su...
Mahajan Das Bairagi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Mahajan Das Bairagi & ORS.versus State of M.P.& anr. Writ Petition No.21164 / 2013 6.1.2014: Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Devashish Sakalkar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. It appears that the petitioners are claiming the similar benefits as were extended by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior in W.A.No.225/2007 (Devi Charan Jha and another versus The State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 17.12.2008. It is contended that appeal against the said decision was preferred before the Apex Court, but the SLP was dismissed. The Division Bench of this Court has decided the appeal in the following manner :- 1. Appellants are free to accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the VRS Scheme of 2005. 2. If any government department or its instrumentality is willing to take the appellants or any employee of the corporation on deputation, the corporation will issue no objection certificate in their favour as have been done in the case of other employees. 3. So...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Gorelal Yadav Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
M.Cr.C.No.4474/2012 6.1.2014 Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State. Heard on admission. The State has preferred an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 5.1.2012 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Special Case No.36/2010 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred to as the Special Act).The prosecution's case in short is that on 7.10.2009 at about 6.00 p.m the prosecutrix (PW1) went to the open field of Village Ghughuchihai (Police Station Kolgawan, District Satna) to answer the call of nature. When she was seated on earth, the respondent Gorelal came to the spot and pressed her breast and thereafter, the respondent Ramdev held her waist and threw her on the earth. On her shouting, her husband Jainarayan (PW2) and one Rajesh Chou...
- ‹ Prev
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- Next ›
- Last »