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.
Shiv Kumar Dahle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
M.Cr.C.No.7904 of 2013 28.01.2014 Shri N.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Umesh Pandey, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent-State. Heard. State's counsel submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. Even otherwise depositions of various examined prosecution witnesses have been placed on record on behalf of the applicant. In such premises, the case is taken up for final hearing on merits. On behalf of the applicant, Shiv Kumar Dahle, S/o Chandan Lal Dahle, this second repeat petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail as he is in custody since 7.5.2008 in connection of Crime No.108/2008, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Balaghat for the offence of Sections 325/149, 302/149, 148, 323/149 of IPC. As alleged, he accompanied with co-accused while remaining in jail in connection of some case had carried out beating of some other prisoneRs.Out of them, two prisoners due the injuries sustained by them in such incident had died while some...
Kamlesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.84/2013 Kamlesh. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on the 28th day of January, 2014) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC vide judgment dated 25.4.2012 passed by the JMFC Khurai in Criminal Case No.708/2008 whereby he was sentenced with three months' RI with fine of Rs.500/-. Again in Criminal Appeal No.268/2012 vide judgment dated 3.10.2012 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai maintained the conviction of the applicant but reduced the sentence to the period of till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.2000/-. Being aggrieved with bo...
Satendra @ Guddu Vs. Smt. Savita Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Just ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
M.Cr.C.No.3607/11 28.01.2014 None for the applicant. Shri Sampoorna Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. This case is listed today for admission and consideration of I.A.No.6718/11, an application for grant of stay against operation and execution of the impugned order passed by the revisional Court for enhancement of the monthly sum of maintenance awarded to the respondents by the trial Court. Having perused the petition, I have found that this petition is preferred on behalf of the applicants herein the husband of respondent no.1 while the father of respondent no.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2011, passed by Sessions Judge Narsinghpur, in Criminal Revision No.9/11 whereby, affirming the other findings of the order dated 9.12.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class Narsinghpur in M.Cr. Case No.47/10, directing the applicant herein to pay Rs.300/- per month and Rs.200/- per month respectively to the respondent no.1 and 2 as interi...
Laxman Singh Silawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Laxman Singh Silawat versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.11661 / 2013 28.1.2014 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents. P etitioner was a candidate who appeared for appointment to the post of Patwari as a reserved category candidate. According to petitioner in the District of Narsinghpur, six posts were reserved to be filled-up by women candidates and out of six reserved posts only 5 posts were filled up. Referring to the policies and circulars applicable it is stated that if reserved candidates, for the category reserved for women candidates, are not available then the vacant post has to be filled up by candidates of reserved category i.e.S.C./S.T./O.B.C.Petitioner claims to be a candidate belonging to reserved category (S.C.) and it is his grievance that a post left vacant due to non- availability of women candidate in the District of Narsinghpur is not being filled up in accordance to policy, as th...
Hemraj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.21861/2013. 28/01/2014 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. Petitioner is aggrieved by recording of his date of birth in the service record wherein his age is shown to be 22 years at the time of initial appointment and his date of birth is shown 30/12/1951. Petitioner disputed the aforesaid endorsement of date of birth in the service record. Petitioner submitted that he was illiterate person and at the time of entry in service, the respondents did not put him for medical examination for ascertainment of his age. On the basis of the said endorsement in the service book, without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the strength of alleged service record he is being subjected to retirement. He has served a legal notice Annexure P/4 dated 06/12/2013. Despite having been served legal notice, the respondents have not decided the same in accordance with law. Petitio...
Smt. Urmila JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Smt. Urmila Jain & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1293 / 2014 28.1.2014 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. The petitioners claim 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 were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing ...
Babulal Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Babulal Gupta & Anr. versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1403 / 2014 28.1.2014 Shri R.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted after retirement from service, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o. Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.in W.P.No.6773/06, decided on 26/04/2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being passed in W.P.No.5756/08(s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya & Others versus State of M.P.& OtheRs.decided on 26/05/2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (Supra) the directions given is as under : 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and ...
Harpal Singh Rajpoot Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
1 W.P.No.22387/2013 W.P.No.22387/2013 28.01.2014 Shri S.U.Baig, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Petitioners initially appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998. Subsequently, being absorbed as Adhyapaks in pursuance to the Madhya Pradesh Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of service) Rules 2008 and granted regular pay-scale with effect from 01.04.2007 seeks direction to the respondents to grant regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi. During the couRs.of submission, it is being stated by learned counsel for petitioners that similarly situated persons have approached this Court vide writ petition No.602/2010(s) : Mohanlal and ors.v.State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 22.01.2010 & writ petition No.4720/2013 : Jitendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and these petitio...
Jagesh Jharia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Jagesh Jharia versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1391 / 2014 28.1.2014 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Petitioner's father was working in Public Works Department, he died in harness and, therefore, on 25.1.2011 compassionate appointment was granted to the petitioner. It seems that petitioner was implicated in case for certain offences under Indian Penal Code and on 30.4.2012 he was honorably acquitted by the Session Judge Umariya. Respondent No.2 the Director General of Police sent a character verification report to the Executive Engineer and indicate that a criminal case against petitioner was pending and, therefore, he was not fit for appointment. Accordingly, on 20.7.2012 petitioner's services were terminated. Petitioner submitted representation to the Executive Engineer of the department and pointed out that no criminal case is pending, petitioner was already exonerated and, therefore, he sho...
Smt. Geeta Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
Smt. Geeta Shukla versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1382 / 2014 28.1.2014 Shri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Petitioner is challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o. Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.in W.P.No.6773/06, decided on 26/04/2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being passed in W.P.No.5756/08(s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya & Others versus State of M.P.& OtheRs.decided on 26/05/2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (Supra) the directions given is as under : 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Krammonati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »