Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Kushal Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
W.P.No.1544/2014 (K.P.Pandey versus State of MP and otheRs.10.02.2014 Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondents/authorities are not determining and paying the petitioner's G.P.F.arrears inspite of the fact that he has retired long back. It is submitted that on a representation, the authorities have released part of the arrears but the remaining part has not been considered or being decided by the Accountant General. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner has not filed any documents to indicate that the petitioner has approached the Accountant General, the respondent No.4 by filing any representation giving details of the arrears due to the petitioner after the dismissal of his claim by the Consumer Forum as non-maintainable and has directly approached this court by filing the present petition without approaching the authority concerned. Looking to the fact tha...
Shiv Prasad Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
M.Cr.C.No.17318/13 10.02.2014 Shri P.C.Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned P.L.for the State/respondent. Learned P.L.submits that he is under receipt of the case diary hence, this case is taken up for final hearing. Heard. On behalf of the applicant this petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.478/13, registered at Police Station Umaria, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C.and under Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Applicants counsel after taking me through the rejection order of the Sessions Court along with the papers placed on the record by referring the FiRs.Information Report of Crime No.458/13, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Umaria at the instance of Sandeep Kumar Gautam at 10.30 AM on 18.10.2013 against the applicant for the offence under Section 456 o...
Gorelal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
WP No.55/14 10.2.2014 Heard Shri Ravindra Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on advance copy. The petitioners have filed this petition claiming parity with the petitioners of W.P.No.939/2009 which was disposed of by this Court on 17.1.2013 with a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider the cases of Kotwars for allotment of land in accordance with law keeping in view of the circulars issued by the State Government, therefore, similar order may also be passed in the present petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have already filed a representation before the respondents/authorities vide Annexure P/5 in this regard but no decision thereon has been taken till date by the respondents/authorities, therefore, they be directed to do so. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State on advance copy submits that the petitioners griev...
Rathi Sugar Private Limited Vs. Union of India Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
1 Writ Petition No.14063/2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.14063/2011 Rathi Sugar Private Limited ...Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents CORAM Hon. Shri Justice A.M.Khanwilkar, Chief Justice Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti Whether approved for reporting ?. Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondents. Shri Shashank Shekhar, Advocate for the Intervenor. ORDER (10.02.2014) Per A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice (Oral): This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to challenge the notification dated 19.7.2010 issued in exercise of powers under section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956. The notification mentions the purpose of acquisition for road widening and four-lane road. The petitioners land bearing survey No.156/1 and 156/2 was notified as one of the land to be acquired vide said notification. The notification invited objections wh...
Rajendra Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
M.Cr.C.No.4954/2012 23.1.2014 Shri D.D.Jaiswal, counsel for the applicant. Heard on IA. No.26616/2012, an application for condonation of delay. Only the delay of four days has been caused in filing the application for leave to appeal. Looking to the period of delay, it would be proper to condone the delay. IA. No.26616/2012 is hereby allowed. 4 days delay in filing the application is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The facts of the case in short are that the applicant moved a complaint before the trial Court that on 12.4.2007 a contract took place between four purchasers including the applicant with Sodan Singh that he would sell his land for a particular amount and out of the shares of the purchasers the applicant was required to pay a sum of Rs.62,500/-. The applicant gave a cheque of Rs.50,000/- to Sodan Singh. Thereafter, no contract took place. When the appliant demanded the amount back then Salamuddin, who was the intervener in the contract, told that his amount will be retu...
Ashok Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
1 W.P.No.2260/2014 W.P.No.2260/2014 10.02.2014 Shri Deepak Jain, learned counsel for petitioner. Ms.V.Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State. Petitioner initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998. Subsequently, being absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak 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 petitioner 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 petitions were...
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited Vs. Anil Ku ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
M.Cr.C.No.5065/2012 10.2.2014 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has moved an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14.3.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Electricity Act, Sagar in Special Case No.1022/2008 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charge of Section 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The prosecution's case in short is that on 14.11.2008 at 4.30 p.m an information was received on telephone that the electrical line of District Hospital, Sagar, was cut out and therefore, one employee Munna Raikwar was sent to the spot and he informed that the electrical cable was broken by the JCB Machine driven by one Jassu Patel and it was owned by Abhishek Dubey, Contractor. It was also mentioned that the development work was going on under the supervision of Executive Engineer A.K.Singh. The officers of the applicant made a spot memo Ex.P/1 and thereafter, a complaint was filed. After ...
Ravindra Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
WP No.177/14 10.2.2014 Shri Amit Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A,.R.Rao, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Heard, on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition claiming benefit of Krammonnati as per the circular of the State Government dated 19.4.1999, in view of the circular of the State Government dated 3.09.2005, as interpreted by this court in the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Prerna versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.W.P No.6773/2006, decided on 26.4.2007, in the following terms:- 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983, 19/04/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2005. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions : (i) Clause-3 of policy dated 03/09/2005 fixing the cut of date 01/08/2003 to grant the benefit of second Kramonnati to the teacher...
Punnalal Kewat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
WP No.1949/14 10.2.2014 Heard Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission. The petitioners are claiming benefits in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla and Ors.V.State of M.P.And ORS.decided on 15.2.2010 in W.A.No.596/2010. This Court in W.P.No.5963/2011 has considered this aspect and taken note of subsequent events i.e.that the representation of the petitioners was considered by the State Government pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla (Supra) and rejected the same on 12/8/2011, against which, a writ petition was filed before the Gwalior Bench which was registered as W.P.No.5963/2011 and was decided by order dated 13.12.2011 which is reported in 2012 (2) JLJ421 The learned Single Bench has passed the order on 3.10.2012 in W.P.No.16357/2012 in the following terms :- Inter-alia contending that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.596/10 Gopal...
Khalid Ahmed Vs. Sarwar Ahmed Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
1 W.P. No. 20673 Of 2013 10.2.2014 Shri A.K. Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on admission. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.8.2013; whereby, an application filed by petitioner under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for summoning certain witnesses from the office of Municipal Corporation, Nazul Officer, Nazul Office, Bhopal, Thana Incharge, Police Station Shahjahanbad, Bhopal, Mohd. Shahab, Nasim Uddin, Maruf Khan, Mohan Shukla, Advocate and Vikar Ahmad Khan; has been rejected. The suit is for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of house bearing No. 33/1 situated near Yakub Khan ki Maszid, Ali Manzil Road, Shahjahanbad, Bhopal and for a declaration that Hibanama dated 15.10.1998 as null and void and that no right accrues therefrom in favour of defendants. During pendency of the suit,...