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.
Ajju @ Ajeet @ Karan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
CRR No.1814/2013 Criminal Revision No.1814/2013 28.1.2014 Shri J.N.Tripathi, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A.for the State/respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 7.8.2013 passed by the learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.39/2013, whereby the application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C.filed by the applicant was partly allowed. The facts of the case, in short, are that, a trial is going on against the applicant for various offences including offence under section 376 of IPC. It was alleged that the applicant was in habit to pass filthy comments on the mobile of the prosecutrix and list of various calls done by the applicant was filed with the charge-sheet. The prosecutrix and her husband were examined but, unfortunately, the learned counsel for the applicant could not get the copy of call details prior to their examination. Therefore, an application was moved for recalling the prosecut...
Mohammad Arif Shaikh Vs. Registrar General High Court of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Writ Petition No.794/2014 28.01.2014 Shri Akshay Sapre, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.S.Shroti, Senior Advocate with Shri Vikram Johri, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Heard counsel for the parties. We had adjourned this matter on two occasions to reassure ourselves that if the principal contention of the petitioner was to be accepted whether the petitioner would still get into the stream due to possible reduction of benchmark/ cut off marks below 75% of Center No.1 and whether that exercise is imperative in the fact situation of the present case. Having perused the record produced by the High Court through counsel, it is noticed that the petitioner participated in the selection process against general category. Only 43 posts are earmarked for the General Category. For inviting candidates for further examination/interview the High Court decided to invite around 430 candidates which is 10 times of the number of posts in general category. Keeping that in mind the benchmark...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Lalita Bai Judgement ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
MA No.1184/2012 28.01.2014 Shri Dinesh Kaushal and Shri Mohan Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1 to 6, claimants. Shri B. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8. Considering the oral prayer of counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8, appellant's counsel is directed to supply him a copy of the appeal memo alongwith copy of award within three days enabling him to defend this appeal. Heard on IA No.4855/12, appellant's application for grant of stay against recovery of the sum of the impugned award from the appellant. It is noted that on earlier occasion, vide order dated 23.4.2012 the following interim exparte order was passed :- "Considering the aforesaid, on deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- within a month from today before the Accident Claims Tribunal, the recovery of the remaining amount of award from the appellant shall remain stayed." Having heard the counsel, after perusing the impugned award alongwith the record of the tribunal, so also the question i...
Mohd. Irfan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
- 1 -1 W.P.No.21414/2013 28/1/2014 : Shri B.K.Bais, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ against the respondents for following reliefs : (I) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for inclusion his land in the publication under Section 6 & 9 of the Act and to pay him the compensation as per the Rehabilitation Policy along with all the benefits of Rehabilitation Scheme in lieu of the said lands in accordance with law/procedure (II) Pass any other writ/order/direction to which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition. Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments on perusing the papers placed on record, I have found that ...
M/s A.C. Chenna Reddy Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
W.P.No.14210/2010 M/s A.C.Chenna Reddy versus State of MP & ORS.28/01/2014 Shri V.R.Rao, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Kapil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Challenging a Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 27.8.2010 & 21.9.2010 issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Recovery of Government Dues, Mumbai, at the instance of Executive Engineer, Narmada Development, Division No.4, Sihora, District- Jabalpur as contained in Annexure-P1 & P2, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was granted the contract for earthwork construction of 27 structures and cement concrete lining vide Agreement No.3DL/2003-04 and various other works as are indicated in the writ petition. The work was executed by the petitioner and finally when the final settlement was done, it seems that certain payments were not made to the petitioner, as a result, petitioner aggrieved, raised a dispute before the M.P.Arbitration Tribunal on a...
Wahid Begum Vs. Union of India Judgement Given By: Hon'ble the Chief J ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
W.P.No.6376/2009 28.01.2014 Smt. Durgesh Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. The relief claimed in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent is to extend pensionary benefit to the petitioner with 18% interest along with cost and expenses of the litigation. The petitioner had purportedly applied for pensionary benefit on 27.5.1997 under category disabled dependent of the deceased employee. According to the petitioner, her disability was chronic and was by birth rendering her incapable of earning her own livelihood. In response to that representation, the petitioner received a communication from the Assistant Works Manager on 14.7.2008 (Annexure-R/2) calling upon the petitioner to get medical certificate from the Medical Board. In view of this co...
Vikas JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
W.P.9919/2010 28.1.2014 Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, Counsel for respondent No.2 and 3. Petitioner had participated in a process of tender initiated by respondents No.2 and 3, Municipal Council, Tikamgarh vide advertisement dated 19/10/2009. For participating in the tender process petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- as earnest money. However, the tender was cancelled and vide order dated 19/4/2010, the parties were directed to take back the Earnest money. The petitioner represented that the earnest money was not paid and he filed this Writ petition on 22.7.2007. Even though notices have been issued and the matter is pending for more than 4 yeaRs.respondents have not filed any return. It was pointed out by Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of Rs.25,000/- has been refunded back to the petitioner sometime in the year 2011 after filing of the writ petition and therefore, when the matter ...
Anil Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
M.Cr.C.No.15512/13 28.01.2014 Shri Sampoorna Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Umesh Pandey, learned Govt. Adv.for State/respondent. Heard. On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.for grant of bail to the applicant as he is in custody since 4.10.2013 in connection of Crime No.551/13, registered at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni for the offence under Sections 392 & 397 of I.P.C.and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Applicants counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on the record argued that on account of some previous enmity with the brother-in-law of the complainant, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. In continuation he said that, after holding the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed by the prosecution against the applicant and other co-accused. According to such charge-sheet, the identification was also carried out in which the applicant and other ...
Mukesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
- 1 -1 W.P.No.18066/2013 28/1/2014 : Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenging the orders passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority under the provisions of M.P.Rajsuraksha Adhiniyam and externing the petitioner from the District in question, this writ petition has been filed. Even though the period for externment is already over on 19.12.2012 but considering the fact that for the period of six months when the appeal was pending before the Commissioner there was stay in the order of externment, the question be considered on merit. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that externment proceeding were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2011 and at that point of time only two cases were pending against him. of Gambling Act and they were registered on 4th May and 5th May, 2011. That apart, there is no other material available against the petitioner. Howe...
Shankar Prasad Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
W.P.Nos.852/08 & 2243/08 28.1.14 Shri Anoop Saxena, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri S.D.Tiwari, G.A.for the respondent-State. Heard, counsel for the parties. These petitions take exception to the Tender Invitation Process dated 24.4.07 (Annexure P/1) and Work Order dated 17.5.07 (Annexure P/2).Further relief has been claimed in the petitions to restore the possession of the petitioners on concerned land and to provide exemplary compensation to the petitioners for damages due to illegal action taken by the respondents. As regards fiRs.relief, the question is whether the petitioners can be permitted to challenge Tender Invitation Notice and Work Order referred to in the petitions. That Tender Invitation Notice and Work Order were issued by the Authorities for construction and maintenance of the Temple site after it was cleared by the concerned Authorities. Incidentally, it is alleged by the petitioners that during clearance action, structures possessed by the petitioners also came to b...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »