Madhya Pradesh Court October 2013 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.
Rajendra Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
1 W.P.No.17480 of 2013 7.10.2013 Shri Anoop Saxena, counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners/plaintiffs No.1(A) and 1(E).have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.13 (Annex.P/8) passed by the II Civil Judge-II, Nowgaon, Chhatarpur in Co.No.50-A/12 whereby their application filed under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint to insert the additional word temple in the prayer clause of the plaint, has been dismissed. 2. The petitioners counsel after taking me through the averments of the IA (Annex.P/5) argued that the petitioners have filed the impugned suit for various properties including the alleged temple but due to typographical error and over sight in the prayer clause of the plaint, the word temple was not stated and accordingly, the same could not have been included in the prayer clause. He also pointed out that besides the prayer clause, at some places also, the petitioners want to implead such wo...
Priyawart Shastri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
WRIT PETITION No.17225/2013 1 07.10.2013 Shri S.K.Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of M.P.And others [2012 (2) MPLJ605, wherein only this much was directed that the respondents are directed to examine the requirement of refixation of honorarium in the present days of price hike. It is contended that a writ petition was earlier filed by the said person which was decided and subsequently the order passed in the said writ petition was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as also in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, though the writ petition filed by Gopal Chawla and others (supra) subsequently w...
Dr. Vijay Bajaj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
W.P.No.13207 of 2013 Dr. Vijay Bajaj vs State of M.P.& others 07/10/2013 Shri Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. The petitioner has sought the following relief:- (i) The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents No.1 to 2 to hold the enquiry with regard to given relaxation of market fees by the respondent No.3 to the respondents Nos.4 & 5 against the notification issued by the State Government. (ii) The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondent No.1 & 2 to enquire the matter of officers of the respondent No.3, who were involving the causing loss of market fees of the respondent No.3 while given exemption to the respondents No.4 & 5 against the notification of the State Government. (iii) The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ...
Nagendra Singh Gaharwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1293/2011 7/10/2013 Shri Shivam Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. They are heard on I.A.No.4198/12, which is the second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Nagendra Singh. The fiRs.application (I.A.No.18040/11) was dismissed as withdrawn on 21/11/11. Appellant stand convicted for the offence punishable under sections 364-A read with sections 120-B & 368 of IPC and has been sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the abductee Deepak Agrawal (PW-8) was kidnapped by some persons and the allegation of the prosecution against this appellant is that in the fifth night he was kept in the house in which this appellant was residing belongs to Ram Narayan Sharma (PW-5).It is further propounded that Ram N...
Tulsiram Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
1 Writ Petition No.16873/2013 07.10.2013 Shri Ravindra Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents on advance notice. Heard. Rejection of candidature for appointment of Area Education Officer on the ground that the petitioners do not possess requisite year of teaching experience is cause for present writ petition. That the cadre of Area Education Officer came to be created by causing amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982. The posts are to be filled up through a limited Departmental Examination from amongst Teachers (Upper Division TeacheRs.Head Masters of Middle School/Adhyapak of Local Bodies. The minimum educational qualifications and other requisitions as per amendments in Rule 1982 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 22.08.2013 are Graduate Degree from recognized University and B.Ed. which should be recognized by the National Cou...
Dr. Majid HussaIn Vs. Shashida Qureshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12266/2013 07.10.2013 Shri Prashant K. Badarya, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.against the judgment dated 25.9.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(Smt. Versha Sharma).Bhopal in R.T.No.681/04, whereby the respondents were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and released to submit a bond for the one year to keep peace. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that the respondents are released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act but, the trial Court could not mention the actual provision. Since the matter was 15 years old therefore, it was proper for the trial Court to release the respondents on probation. There is no possibility for enhancement of any sentence against the respondents. Consequently, the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.is hereby disposed off with the dire...
Jitendra Singh Rathor Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1520/2011 7/10/2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. They are heard on I.A.No.9399/13, which is the second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Jitendra Singh Rathor. The fiRs.application (I.A.No.13467/11) was dismissed as withdrawn on 23/04/2012. Appellant stand convicted for the offence punishable under section 364-A read with section 120-B of IPC, section 25 (1-B) A of Arms Act and has been sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment, RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.500/- with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the abductee Deepak Agrawal (PW-8) was kept in fifth night in the house of Manohar who has already been enlarged on bail today in criminal appeal No.1372/2011. The contention of learned counsel is that the allegation against th...
Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
1 Writ Petition No.17084/2013 07.10.2013 Shri Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents on advance notice. Heard. Rejection of candidature for appointment of Area Education Officer on the ground that the petitioners do not possess requisite year of teaching experience is cause for present writ petition. That the cadre of Area Education Officer came to be created by causing amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982. The posts are to be filled up through a limited Departmental Examination from amongst Teachers (Upper Division TeacheRs.Head Masters of Middle School/Adhyapak of Local Bodies. The minimum educational qualifications and other requisitions as per amendments in Rule 1982 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 22.08.2013 are Graduate Degree from recognized University and B.Ed. which should be recognized by the National Co...
Smt. Rajkumari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16714/2013 1 07.10.2013 Shri S.K.Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of M.P.And others [2012 (2) MPLJ605, wherein only this much was directed that the respondents are directed to examine the requirement of refixation of honorarium in the present days of price hike. It is contended that a writ petition was earlier filed by the said person which was decided and subsequently the order passed in the said writ petition was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as also in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, though the writ petition filed by Gopal Chawla and others (supra) subsequently w...
Vishwadeep Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Writ Petition No.17075/13 07.10.2013 Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners stated themselves to be co-Bhoomiswami of the disputed land, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Constitution, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.2013 (Annexure-P-2) passed by the respondent no.4 Tahsildar in revenue case No.311-A-27/11-12 whereby, the proceedings filed by the respondents no.5 & 6 under Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Herein after in short the Code) for partition without impleading the petitioners as co-Bhoomiswami of the disputed land and without following the procedure prescribed under the laws and the rules, has been allowed. In the couRs.of arguments on asking the petitioners counsel that the impugned order Annexure-P-2 is made appelable under Section 44 of the Code, then the petitioners have remedy to file the appeal on which, counsel submits that he has alrea...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »