Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Vivek Kumar Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1...W.P.No.20214 o10. 04.2013 Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had opted the I.T.Branch on priority no.6 while the other branches which the petitioner had opted are MECH, CE, EC, EE and CSE. The petitioner was in merit list at serial no.5009 but less meritorious candidates have been given admission in the aforesaid subjects. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid subjects vis-a-vis to I.T.The documents prepared by the petitioner is handed over to Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Deputy Government Advocate showing the fact that less meritorious candidates were allocated in EC, EE, and CS. On raising such contention, Shri Jaideep Singh prays for some time to ascertain the facts and apprise this court whether any other couRs.as per choice of petitioner can be allotted to the petitioner. A type copy ...
Golu @ Sohail Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.18317/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR (AFR) Division Bench: Hon'ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena Hon'ble Justice Smt. Vimla Jain WRIT PETITION NO.18317/2012 Golu @ Sohail S/o Late Shri Sahaamat Khan, aged 26 years R/o Near Kunjadhai Masjid P.S. Hanumantal District Jabalpur (M.P.) ....Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through- The Upper Secretary, Department of Home (C-Anubhag) Vallabh Bhawan,Bhopal (M.P.) 2. District Magistrate, Jabalpur District Jabalpur (M.P.) 3. S.D.M. Gohalpur, District Jabalpur (M.P.) 4. Superintendent of Police Jabalpur district Jabalpur (M.P.) 5. Superintendent, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Central Jail Jabalpur district Jabalpur (M.P.) 6. Town Inspector,P.S.Gohalpur Jabalpur district Jabalpur (M.P.) .Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner: Shri Dilip Shrivastava, Advocate. For the respondents: Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate...
Mono Simon Barik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
M.Cr.C.No.7162/2012 10.04.2013 Shri Rajesh Nema, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State. None for the respondent No.2. Heard the arguments on admission. The petitioner has filed the petition under Sections 397/401/482 of Cr.P.C.for recalling and setting aside the ex-parte order dated 24.4.2012 passed in criminal revision no.318/09 rejecting the same. Facts in brief of the case are that the criminal revision no.318/09 was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the Court of J.M.F.C.(Smt. Trapti Sharma).Bhopal in R.T.No.20040/08 framing the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC against the petitioneRs.The criminal revision no.318/09 was rejected vide order dated 24.4.2012 by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Shri Sushil Harkoli with the findings that whether the allegations are true or false, will be determined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced during trial and cannot be determined at ...
Vishal Sharma Vs. Rajive Gandhi Technical University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
W.P.No.5857/2012 10.4.2013 Shri V.K.Jain, counsel for petitioner. Shri M.K.Verma, counsel for respondent no.1. Shri Pradeep Sharma, counsel for respondent no.2. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A.for respondent Nos.3 & 4. Shri Subhash Chaturvedi, counsel for respondent no.5. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was allocated to the college of respondent no.5, in the counselling by respondent no.4 held on 28.11.2011 and was admitted in college of respondent no.5 on 02.12.2011, while the couRs.of M.Pharma had already commenced on 26.09.2011. In the aforesaid circumstances, respondent No.4 is to explain, why the petitioner was allocated the college of respondent no.5 in the counselling on 28.11.2011, after near about two months from the date of commencement of the session. For this purpose we allow two weeks time to file an affidavit, as prayed by Shri Jaideep Singh. In the meantime, the petitioner is permitted to attend classes, which shall be subject to further orders on the next date...
Ananya Tiwari Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.6554/2013 10/4/2013: Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Siddique, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner has been issued with a pass-port by the office of respondents No.2 and 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that in the pass port his Date of Birth is recorded as "30th September, 1996" instead of 30th September 1995 and seek correction of the same he has filed an application. As the same is not considered and decided, this application is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, for the present without entering into controveRs.on merits, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order before respondents No.2 and 3, respondents No.2 and 3 shall take up the application for correction and shall decide it in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needl...
Smt. Sosan Bai Vs. Smt. Nabubai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.6057/2013 10/4/2013: Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt.Adv.for the respondent-State on advance notice. Grievance of the petitioners is that partition suit is pending since June 2009. Evidence of the plaintiff is concluded and the matter is pending. Prayer made in this writ petition is that learned Court below be directed to conclude the trial at an earlier date. Keeping in view the fact that petitioners are all ladies and have only made a prayer for early disposal of the suit, the learned Court below is directed to make endevour for disposal of the suit in accordance to law after hearing all concern within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the learned Court below, if for any reason feels that the same could not be done, learned Court below is granted liberty to seek extension of time before this Court. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of...
Devendra Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Writ Petition No ::5043. / 2013 Devendra Kumar Jain versus State of MP and others 10.04.2013. Shri Sushil Mishra for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State/respondents. Considering the fact that representation of the petitioner is pending consideration before respondent No.2 Commissioner, Jabalpur, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the claim in accordance to law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Ajay Shukla Vs. Project Officer National Highway Project
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Writ Petition No ::10022. / 2010 Ajay Shukla and another versus Project Officer, National Highways & ors 10.04.2013. Shri L.G.S.Baghel for the petitioner. Shri Mohan Sausarkar for respondent No.1. In view of the order passed by the Arbitrator, namely Commissioner, Sagar, petitioner is required to move the appropriate Civil Court for further compensation. Keeping in view the same, it is directed that in case petitioner files an application before the appropriate Civil Court within a period of one month from today, the concerned Civil Court shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law and shall not reject it on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
In Reference:- (Narendra Sharma) Vs. Ashok Singh Bhadoriya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 Cr.R. No.1328 of 2009 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1328/2009 In Reference (Narendra Sharma) -Vs- Ashok Singh Bhadoriya & others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ representative as Amicus Curie in this suo motu revision. Shri K.K.Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 10th day of April, 2013) Vide order dated 6.8.2009 passed by Honble the Chief Justice suo motu revision has been taken by this Court against the order dated 25.6.2009 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as (Special Judge.) in unregistered complaint of 2008 (Narendra Sharma Vs. Ashok Singh Bhadoriya and others).2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainan...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. J.S.R. Gangadhara Shastri
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
R.P.No.227/2013 10.04.2013 Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicants. In other review application the fact has been found that the order passed in A.L.Thakur's case which wasmade applicable in certain other writ petitions filed before this Court, was implemented by the State Government by extending the benefit of pay scale as demanded by such persons. However, since the order passed in A.L.Thakur's case was subjected to writ appeal in Division Bench of this Court and the said writ appeal has been allowed, it is contended that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.16016/2003 is liable to be reviewed. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the applicants is directed to seek instructions whether any benefit was extended to similarly situated persons than the non- applicants in this review petition by the State Government by granting the pay scale of Rs.515-800/- with effect from 1.4.1982. Let the review petition be listed after a week. Certified copy as per rul...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »