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.
Dhaniram Namdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
1 W.P. No. 15832 Of 2013 10.2.2014 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for State of M.P. on advance notice. At the outset learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision in Anil Bhatt and others v. State of M.P. and others : W.P. No. 91/2011 (S) decided on 21.2.2012. In this petition, the petitioner who belongs to Other Backward Classes category, initially appointed as Instructor by order dated 1.1.1991. Subsequently cleared eligibility test of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III held on 31.8.2008 and obtained 53.06 % in Section A and 41.67 % in Section B. The petitioner is Higher Secondary and has undergone training conducted by National Council of Educational Research and Training. It is contended that despite of his clearing the eligibility ...
Smt. Kamlesh Bai Basor Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
W.P.No.2313/2014 Smt. Kamlesh Bai Basor versus State of MP & ORS.10/02/2014 Smt. Shimla Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 on advance notice. Petitioners are Sarpanchs and Sub-Engineer and have challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar-Manpur, by which a sum of `4.39 Lacs is proposed to be recovered from the petitioners and the Revenue Recovery Certificate issued is challenged in this writ petition. Even though, various grounds are raised challenging the Revenue Recovery Certificate, it is seen that on the ground of irregularity or utilization of the funds of MNREGA, some enquiry was ordered and based on the enquiry report submitted by the Additional Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer, the impugned action is taken. It is seen that the Additional Collector has issued a letter Annexure-P1 and based on the same, the competent authority passed an order Annexure-P2 directing for recov...
Rajesh Jagwani Vs. Sharda Prasad Yadav Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
W.P.No.2294/2014 Rajesh Jagwani versus Sharda Prasad Yadav 10/02/2014 Shri Komal Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the order dated 30 th of January, 2014 passed by the Learned 2 nd Upper District Judge-Katni in Civil Suit No.5-A/2012, closing the right of the petitioner to give his evidence and examine himself, petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. For vacating the petitioner from the suit shop, respondent/ landlord has filed the suit, which is pending since 2008. In the said suit, petitioner wanted to examine himself as a witness but as the petitioner was not present on the date fixed and had taken time on more than five occasions since 3.9.2013, right of the petitioner to lead the evidence has been closed on 31 st of January, 2014 by the impugned order and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the aforesaid action. It seems that on 30 th of January, 2014, the case was listed for evidence of the petiti...
Basant Ram Tiwari Vs. General Manager South Eastern Coalfiedls Ltd. K ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
C.P.No.109/2014 (B.R.Tiwari Vs.K.Shamal) 07.02.2014 Shri Premendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging disobedience and non-compliance of the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.15602/12 dated 24.09.2012. It is submitted that inspite of order passed by this court, the respondents/authorities are not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or conducting any enquiry into the same nor have they decided the complaint of the petitioner within three months, therefore they have committed contempt of the order passed by this court. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that this court on earlier occasion had disposed of W.P.No.15602/2012 in the following manner:- In view of the limited payer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to look into the complai...
Smt. Dilhar Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
CRR No.1446/2008 Criminal Revision No.1446/2008 7.2.2014 Shri Vijay Nayak, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.1. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 5.5.2008 passed by the FiRs.Additional Judge to FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in criminal appeal No.33/2007, whereby the judgment dated 21.3.2007 passed by the learned JMFC, Panna (Shri A.K.Pandey) in criminal case No.461/2006 was modified and the respondent No.2 was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC was set aside and she was enlarged on probation. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 22.1.2002, Smt.Dilhar Kumari alongwith her daughter Krishna Kumari was present in her house, situated at Baharganj Kothi, Panna. At that time, some repairing work was going in her house. At about 1 p.m., Smt.Dilhar Kumari was standing near the staircase, the respond...
Vinod Kumar Sanodiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
1 W.P.No.2216/2014 W.P.No.2216/2014 07.02.2014 Shri S.Sisodiya, 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 Sahayak 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...
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. P.S. Moghat Road the State of Madhya Pradesh Jud ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
M.Cr.C.No.1203/14 07.02.2014 Miss. Anita Kaithwas, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned P.L.for the State/respondent. Applicants counsel submits that by filing the fresh Vakalatnama as document no.479/14, yesterday i.e.6.2.2014, in the Registry, she has cured the default. Reader is directed to call the same and place with the record. In such premises, no further order is required on the question of default. Learned P.L.submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. In view of the availability of the case diary, at the request of the applicants counsel this case is taken up for final disposal on merits. Heard. On behalf of the applicants, this petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail, as they are under apprehension of their arrest in connection of Crime No.2/14 registered at Police Station Moghat Road District Khandwa for the offence of Sections 498-A of I.P.C.and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Having heard, keeping...
Govind Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
W.P.No.19294/2011 (G.S.Yadav versus State of MP and otheRs.07.02.2014 Heard Shri Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the respondent Nagar Panchayat, Banda rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization which was considered as per the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.557/07(S) which was disposed of on 14.05.2010. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been working on the post of Pump Attendant in the respondents' establishment for last 27 years and in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to regularization. It is also alleged that the respondents No.4,5 and 6 who are similarly situated and had been engaged along with the petitioner, have been regularized but the case of the petitioner has been ignored and rejected thereby subjecting the petitioner to hostile discrimi...
Rashid Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Cr.R.No.2368/2012 07.02.2014 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned PL for respondent-State. In compliance of the earlier direction records of both the courts below have been received. It is apparent fact that the applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by the judgement dated 13.9.2012 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities) Act, Bhopal in Cr.A.No.554/11 affirming the judgement of the trial court dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No.3918/10 holding guilty to the applicant for the offence of Section 279 and 338 of IPC for which the trial court has awarded punishment of one year RI with fine of Rs.5000/- but in appeal the same has been reduced upto to four months with fine of Rs.5000/- by imposition of additional sentence in default of depositing the fine amount. It is apparent fact on record that in compliance of Rule 14, Chapter 10 of M.P.High Court...
Jaideep Singh Munda Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
M.Cr.C No.12104/12 07.02.2014 Shri Sourabh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri V.P.Tiwari, learned P.L.for the State/respondent. This case is listed today for admission. After arguing some time on making certain query from the applicants counsel on which he prays for short adjournment to file some additional documents to demonstrate the case. But on perusing the earlier order sheets dated 22.1.2013 & 29.1.2013, it is apparent that adjournment was taken on such dates to file the documents but no document was filed. Thereafter, again the case was adjourned on 19.12.2013, 17.1.2014, 21.1.2014 and 29.1.2014, but no document has been filed on behalf of the applicant. In such premises, it could be assumed that the applicant does not want to file the documents in the matter but wants to delay the hearing of this matter for the reasons best known to the applicants counsel. On the other hand, learned P.L.submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. As the case diary is availab...