Madhya Pradesh Court February 2014 Judgments
Karan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
WRIT PETITION No.2624/2014 1 26.02.2014 Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Mohanlal (supra) has passed the following order : Accordingly, without commenting upon the merit...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Cr.R.No.1349/2012 26/2/2014 Shri R.S.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhinav Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the conviction of the applicants who are husband and wife for offences under Section 323 /34 and Section 325 / 34 of IPC and sentencing to undergo six months RI on each count and fine of Rs.1000/- each. The conviction having been upheld by the Appellate Court, therefore, this revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per the case of prosecution on 13.4.2003 at about 7.00 a.m.at Village Deori Pathkan complainant Samaylal along with the friend of his son went for brushing at the well and when they were returning, the applicants were said to have attacked them with lathi and also abused them. Based on the complaint, Crime No.104/2003 was registered under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506/34 of IPC. After trial the C...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
WRIT PETITION No.2950/2014 1 26.02.2014 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Kumar Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners 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 discussion, the appeal f...
Tag this Judgment!Baliram @ Niranjan Nath Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Give ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.725 OF2009Baliram @ Niranjan Nath. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G.S.Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (ORAL) (26/02/2014) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 20.3.2009 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Khandwa in Special Case No.37/2008 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 506 of IPC and sentenced with two years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, three months RI was also directed.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant was doing witchcraft at his residence at Village Rohani (Polic...
Tag this Judgment!Zonal Agricultural Research Station Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commis ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
WRIT PETITION No.8873/2013 1 26.02.2014 Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned Counsel for the respondent. As prayed by learned Counsel for the respondent, time was allowed to seek instructions and to inform whether it would be possible for the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner made against the final order of recovery, as contained in Annexure P-14. After obtaining instructions, it is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that since the said representation was not made in the prescribed proforma and that it was made beyond the period of limitation, i.e.45 days prescribed under the statute, it was not possible for the respondent to condone the delay as there is no provision made under the Act or the scheme to condone the delay in making such representation. It is seen that by way of representation it was pointed out that the recovery assessed against the petitioner was not proper in view of the fact that ab...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Kumar Bhondele Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
WRIT PETITION No.18147/2013 1 26.02.2014 Shri I.K.Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The only grievance of the petitioner appears to be that though he has qualified the eligibility test and the written test conducted by the Professional Examination Board for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-II and III, yet his claim has not been considered by the respondents only because he has not obtained the decree of Bachelor of Education or Diploma in Education. This being so, it is contended that the action on the part of the respondents is per se illegal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the condition mentioned in the rules formulated by the competent authority for appointment on the aforesaid post and has contended that in case the petitioner is not qualified/eligible to be appointed on the post in the Government department or the Government school, if he has qualified the written test h...
Tag this Judgment!Dileep Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Upendra Tripathi Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Second Appeal No.1949 / 2006. 26/02/2014. Shri R.S.Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 18/09/2006 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.1-B/2006 by VI Upper District Judge (Fast Track Court) Rewa (MP) confirming the judgment and decree dated 25/01/2006 passed in Civil Suit No.17-B/05 by learned I Civil Judge Class-I, Rewa (MP) dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.43,700/-. Both the courts below have given concurrent finding that the plaintiff has given Rs.40,000/- on 06/02/1998 to the defendant but the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant has acknowledged for the remaining Rs.23,000/- and interest thereon @ 2.5% per month on 30.04.2000. Both the courts below have considered the fact that the defendant has refunded the amount on 30.4.2000 and further held that remaining amount Rs.23,000/- has been paid acco...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Kant Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Writ Petition No.3275/2014 26.02.2014 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv for respondent-State. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) To direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and the reports of Revenue Officer and Engineer not to construct the government colony at the present site. (ii) To direct the respondents to consider the report for construction of colony at the alternative site as proposed and not to raise the construction at the present site. (iii) To direct the respondents to produce the relevant record before this Hon'ble Court. (iv) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Santosh Kumar Gupta has filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.No.21...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Archana Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Smt. Archana & Anr. versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.2674 / 2014 26.2.2014. Shri Hemant Bhannarwar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Government Advocate for the State. It is stated in the petition that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is further stated that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioners and, therefore, similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Mohanlal (supr...
Tag this Judgment!Hukum Chand JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Hukum Chand Jain & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.2628 / 2014 26.2.2014. Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Government Advocate for the State. It is stated in the petition that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is further stated that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioners and, therefore, similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Mohanlal (supra)...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »