Court : Madhya Pradesh
Review Petition No.986/2012 01.03.2013 Mr. Satish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on I.A. No.14613/2012, an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons assigned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find that sufficient reason has been shown for condoning the delay in filing the review petition is made out. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. I.A. No.14613/2012 is allowed. Heard. This petition has been filed for review of the judgment dated 09.10.2012 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.287/1996. This Court vide judgment dated 09.10.2012 had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the plea with regard to validity of quit notice was neither raised before the Trial Court not before the Lower Appellate Court. Since the plea of validity of quit notice is mixed question of law and fact, it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.11811/2008 (s) Ku. Jayshree Nandeshwar Vs. The State of M.P. & another Present: Honble Shri Rajendra Menon, J.& Hon'ble Mrs. Vimla Jain, J.______________________________________________________ Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1. Shri V. S. Shroti, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Shroti, for respondent No.2. __________________________________________________ ORDER (...82013) Per : Shri Rajendra Menon, J.Petitioner who was a Judicial Officer has filed this writ petition challenging the orders Annexures P/1 and P/ 2 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively removing her from service.2. The Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure P/1 dated 22.1.2008 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service after conducting a departmental enquiry into certain 2 allegations of misconduct committed by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.A.F.R. Judge M.Cr.C.No.1830/2012 Amitesh Tyagi and others VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh and another --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri Priyankush Jain, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, Advocate for the respondent No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 21st day of January, 2014) The applicants have preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the registration of crime No.9/2010 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal on the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC.2. The prosecutions case, in short, is that, the complainant Shweta Sharma was married to Amitesh Tyagi on 11.11.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :11986. Of 2012 Dr. Deochand Bhura V/s State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Deochand Bhura, present in person. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 8.3.2013 Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division exercising powers of an Appellate Authority as contemplated under Section 56 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of demanding stamp duty on an instrument which was impounded by the competent authority in a proceeding that was held before it under the M.P. Land Revenue Code for mutation.2. Facts in brief w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2012CrLJ1747
1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these similar matters, with the consent of parties the matters were analogously heard and decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts are taken from Misc.Cri.Case No.213/2012. “On 14.3.2011 a tractor trolley of the petitioner was seized by forest officials under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the '1927 Act'). As per the story of prosecution, the forest officials were petrolling in the Chambal Sanctuary to check illegal mining of surface soil, sand. During the said petrolling, petitioner's tractor trolley was found laden with sand, surface soil, a forest produce in the prohibited area. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized and a forest criminal case was registered against the petitioner under 1927 Act. The 'forest produce' is defined in Section 4 of the 1927 Act. It is not in dispute between the parties that forest officials sent an intimation of aforesaid seizure to the Magistrate as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.9860/2012(S) Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal Abhiyanta Sangh & otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.WRIT PETITION NO.11083/2012(S) Devendra Kumar Tiwari -Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.WRIT PETITION NO.12298/2012(S) Arvind Kumar Upadhyay and otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.WRIT PETITION NO.12302/2012(S) J.P.Soni and otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.And. WRIT PETITION NO.22145/2012(S) Deepak Kumar Shrivastava and otheRs.-Versus- State of M.P.& otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. 2 Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Shri B.L.Nag, learned counsel for the interveners......[in W.P.No.9860/2012(S)].Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR 1 Civil Revision No.1343/2003 Sanjay Dubey ..................................... Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the applicant:Shri Vivek Rusia and Shri Shekhar Sharma , Advocates For the respondents: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General 2. Civil Revision No.640/2005 M/s.Pratibha Construction Co........... Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the applicant: Shri N.Jauhari, Advocate For the respondents: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General 3. Civil Revision No.481/2006 Arjun Kumar...................................... Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the applicant: Shri Vivek Rusia, Advocate For the respondents: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General 4. Civil Revision No.178/2008 Mohd.Shakir Ansari............................ Applicant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another. Respondents For the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.22017 of 2011 M/s Ideal Minerals and another Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors For Petitioners : Shri Manot Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/ : Shri Ashok Chourasia, Govt. Advocate. State For respondents No.2 & 3 : Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, Advocate. ORDER (07.08.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the respondent no.5 revisional authority (Constituted under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (In short the Act) in revision application/file No.16/04/2007-RC-II whereby, dismissing their revision filed under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 ( in short MCR), the order No.2-64/05/12 dated 27.10.2006, passed by the respondent no.1 State of M.P., allowing the respective applications...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. On a reference by the learned Single Judge, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench to answer the following reference: “(i) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in W.A.No.725/2007(Smt. Rahisha Begum v. State of M.P. & Others) is not a good law in view of the decision of the earlier Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18-7-2005, passed in W.P.No.1273/2000 (State of M.P. and Others v. Ram Singh and another) (ii) Whether an employee is eligible for the benefit of family pension in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 after completing qualifying service in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment Rules framed by the concerned Department for work charged and contingency paid employees or in accordance with the definition of Rule 2 of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 in regard to “contingency paid e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.11519/2007 Prasanna Kumar Jain Vs. Smt. Meeta Jain and another As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vijay Nayak, Advocate for the respondents. Order reserved on :25. 7.2012 Order passed on :28. 8.2012 ORDER 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 9.10.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Bhopal in MJ.No.178/2004 whereby the application filed by the applicant seeking amendment in the reply/written statement has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that the marriage of applicant and respondent No.1 was performed on 26.2.1996. Thereafter, the applicant filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, which was decreed ex-parte on 4.9.2001, thereafter on 28.4.2004, after a lapse of 8 years, the respondents moved an application (P-3) under section 12...
Tag this Judgment!