Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Smt. Nirmala Bai Vs. Hari Charan Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WP No.2395/2013. 27.02.2013 Shri Divesh Jain, Adv.For the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, G.A appears for State and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.5 and submits that he has been supplied with copy of petition. He wants to two weeks' time to file reply. Issue notice to the respondents 1 to 4 on payment of PF within three clear working days by ordinary mode. Heard on the point of interim relief at page 8 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) is adamant to remove the petitioner, who is a woman from the post of Sarpanch for which proceedings are pending in Case No.9/A-89/10-11 and next date of heaing is 5.3.2013 and if the proceedings are not stayed then the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss hence the aforesaid proceedings may kindly be stayed. Learned counsel for the respondent/State objected the arguments. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that judicial proceedings can not be stayed however , it is ...
Abbas Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 Writ Petition No.472/2013(S) 27.02.2013 Shri Riyaz Mohd. learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties. This Court has directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the writ petition on the respondents to seek instructions vide order dated 11.1.2013. The case was listed on 13.2.2013 and the respondents were granted an opportunity to seek instructions and file response. Today again a request is made for grant of some more time to file response. However, looking to the fact that the case of the petitioner was not considered in appropriate manner in terms of direction issued by this Court in his earlier Writ Petition No.7608/2011(S).it is not necessary to grant any further opportunity to the respondents. The claim of the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid order passed in the writ petition has been rejected by the impugned order dated 31.3.2012 Annx.P/1 stating th...
Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
W.P.No.2939/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance notice. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.P.(s) No.5066/2007 (Brajesh Kumar Tiwari versus C.E.O.Zila Panchayat Shivpuri and others).In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(s) No.5066/2007. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj....
The Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jati-jan Jati Adhikari Evam Karmachari Sa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No.8321/2012 27.02.2013 Mr.Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 6. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks quashment of order dated 04.02.2010 as well as a direction to the respondents to maintain the roster pertaining to reservation under the Madhya Pradesh Public Health (I.S.M.& H.) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules 1987 and the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva Arakshan Adhiniyam 1994. When the matter was taken up today for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to his grievance, the petitioner has submitted the representation Annexure P/14 to the Competent Authority and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that suitable decision sh...
Shakil Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1671/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Hinanshu Chaurasiya, counsel for the applicant(s).Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the respondent/State. Heard. The applicants are in custody since October, 2012 in connection with Crime No.751/2012 registered at P.S.Kotwali District Sehore for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 294, 307, 509, 506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that injured suffered injury on his forearm said to have been caused by sword. The injured has already been discharged from the hospital. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicants. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties along with facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits o...
Smt. Mushter Sultana Vs. Mahmood Ahmed Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No :2702. / 2013 Smt. Mushter Sultana versus Mahmood Ahmad Khan 27.02.2013. Shri A.K.Jain for the petitioner. Shri Mukhtar Ahmed for the respondent. Challenging an order-dated 14.2.2013 passed by the learned trial court rejecting an application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and permanent injunction and the claim is based on a registered sale-deed. Written statement was filed by the respondent alongwith a counter-claim. It is seen that as counsel for the petitioner did not attend the proceedings and did not effectively participate in the proceedings of the suit, the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed in default even before the stage of evidence and not the suit is proceeding for considering the counter-claim made by the respondent defendant. After the suit of the petitioner was dismissed after examination of the witnesses in ...
Lavkush Prasad Chourasia Vs. Rajendra Prasad Chaturvedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.1320/2012 M.Cr.C No.1320/2012 27/2/2013 Shri P.N.Mishra, counsel for the petitioneRs.Y.N.Tiwari, counsel for respondent No.2. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan in Criminal Case No.179/2008, affirming the order dated 21.4.2008 passed by JMFC, Amarpatan taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 420, 465,467, 468, 406, 408, 409 and 471 of IPC. On 6.12.2006, the respondents preferred a private criminal complaint against the petitioners in the Court of JMFC, Amarpatan for the aforesaid offences making allegations that during the year 2002 03 and 2004 petitioners those who were the office bearers of Gram Panchayat, Jhinna, had misappropriated the amount and committed cheating and forgery in the matter of disbursement of Samajik Suraksha Pension and disbursement of grain under the scheme of Kam Ke badle Anaj Yojna. The present petition has been preferred on the grounds that the afor...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Brajkishore @ Braj Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 M. Cr.C.NO.1029/12. 27.2.2013. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Alok Tapikar, learned PL for the respondent/ State. Arguments are heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 20.7.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Mandla in Cr.R.No.43/11 arising out of the order dated 28.1.2011 passed by JMFC Mandal in Special Case No.3/09, by which order passed by the trial Court has been set aside and respondent No.1 wife has been granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m.and respondent No.2, son has been granted Rs.1,000/- p.m.under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No.1 has not been proved and the learned Revisional Court has not justified holding that respondent No.1 is legally married wife of the petitioner, as no ceremony required proving the valid marriage...
Smt. Hem Kumari Chauraisya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2908/20127. 02.2013 Shri Praveen Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 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 ...
R.P. Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No.21904/2012 27.02.2013 Mr.S.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is posted as Lecturer in Government Excellence HSS Kusmi, District Sidhi has been transferred to Birsa, District Balaghat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer has been passed during the period of ban in violation of transfer policy. It is further submitted that the petitioner was relieved exparte even before he was served with order of transfer and thereafter by an order dated 12.12.2012, the petitioner was placed under suspension for non-compliance of order of transfer. It is also submitted that after the petitioner was suspended, he was served with the copy of order of relieving from Government Excellence HSS Kusmi on 13.12.2012 by affixture. It is further submitted that since the order of transfer is passed in violation of transfer policy, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »