Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Shastri Sankrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
W.P.No.6453/2008 Shastri Sankrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs State of M.P.and others 14/05/2013 Shri Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Abhijeet Bhomik, Advocate for the respondent Board. Shri Lalit Joglekar, Panel Lawyer for the State. The petitioner's school was affiliated with the respondent No.2 - Board for a period of three yeaRs.After expiry of period of three yeaRs.the petitioner was directed to apply for renewal of the recognition. There were 837 students in the petitioner's institution. The petitioner applied for renewal of affiliation and also completed all the formalities. Thereafter, the committee also inspected the petitioner's institution, however, respondent No.2 had not taken any steps, therefore, this writ petition in the nature of mandamus. Almost five years have been elapsed. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and due to passage of time, this writ petition has become infructuous. It is dismissed accordingly. (Subhash Kakad...
Prem Kumar Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
WA No.1003 of 2012 WA No.1004 of 2012 WA No.1015 of 2012 WA No.1016 of 2012 WA No.1017 of 2012 WA No.1018 of 2012 WA No.1019 of 2012 WA No.1028 of 2012 WA No.1029 of 2012 WA No.1030 of 2012 WA No.1038 of 2012 WA No.1039 of 2012 WA No.1040 o14. 5.2013. Shri A.M.Trivedi, Sr.cousnel with Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra for the appellants. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari for the respondents. This batch of appeals is arising out of common order dt.17.7.2012 passed by the writ court in WP No.5437/2006(S).WP No.11282/2006(S).WP No.13804/2005(S).WP No.15488/2005(S).WP No.15489/2005(S).WP No.15493/2005(S).WP No.15494/2005(S).WP No.15495/2005(S).WP NO.15496/2005(S) WP No.15498/2005(S).WP No.15500/2005(S).WP No.6626/2006(S).WP No.6627/2006(S).WP No.6628/2006(S) and WP No.7150/2006(S).The learned single Judge has found that the cancellation of the selection process for the post of Jail Warden, Central Jail, Rewa was fully justified as there were serious illegalities and regularities in the selection and while ...
S.K.Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
S.K.Pandey versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :11399. / 2008 (s) 14.05.2013. Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.5. In view of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2776/2009(s) (S.S.Mishra & ORS.versus State of M.P.& Ors.) decided on 26.4.2011, this petition is also allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-5 is quashed and the State Government is directed to take action in accordance to directions already issued in para 11 of the order passed by this Court on 26.4.2011 in W.P.No.2776/2009(s) and other cases. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Subhash Chand Solanki Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
WA No.1003 of 2012 WA No.1004 of 2012 WA No.1015 of 2012 WA No.1016 of 2012 WA No.1017 of 2012 WA No.1018 of 2012 WA No.1019 of 2012 WA No.1028 of 2012 WA No.1029 of 2012 WA No.1030 of 2012 WA No.1038 of 2012 WA No.1039 of 2012 WA No.1040 o14. 5.2013. Shri A.M.Trivedi, Sr.cousnel with Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra for the appellants. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari for the respondents. This batch of appeals is arising out of common order dt.17.7.2012 passed by the writ court in WP No.5437/2006(S).WP No.11282/2006(S).WP No.13804/2005(S).WP No.15488/2005(S).WP No.15489/2005(S).WP No.15493/2005(S).WP No.15494/2005(S).WP No.15495/2005(S).WP NO.15496/2005(S) WP No.15498/2005(S).WP No.15500/2005(S).WP No.6626/2006(S).WP No.6627/2006(S).WP No.6628/2006(S) and WP No.7150/2006(S).The learned single Judge has found that the cancellation of the selection process for the post of Jail Warden, Central Jail, Rewa was fully justified as there were serious illegalities and regularities in the selection and while ...
Prakash Raikwar Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
(1) Cr.A.No.1016/1998 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1016/1998 Prakash Raikwar son of Ramcharan Raikwar, aged 28 years, labourer, resident of Agra Mohalla, Panna, P.S. Tahsil and District Panna, M.P. .........Appellant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh ......Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the appellant: Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******* JUDGMENT (14.05.2013) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 16.04.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.19/94 convicting the appellant under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.4000/-. In default of ...
Nanhelal Mahalgamaiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
Writ Petition No ::561. / 2009 Nanhelal Mahalgamaiya versus State of MP and others 14.05.2013. Shri S.K.Garg for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for State. Petitioner is a retired employee. He has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2007. Grievance of the petitioner is that with effect from the year 2000 till his retirement no increment was paid to him, as his service book was missing and, therefore, while calculating his pensionary benefits error has been committed. Claiming grant of increment from 2000, appropriate pay fixation and thereafter revision of pension and other benefits, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Even though respondents have stated in the return that claim of the petitioner has been decided in accordance to the last pay drawn by him at the time of retirement, the fact remains that the averments of the petitioner and the indications in this regard made with regard to non-availability of service book as is evident fr...
Santosh Kumar Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
WA No.1003 of 2012 WA No.1004 of 2012 WA No.1015 of 2012 WA No.1016 of 2012 WA No.1017 of 2012 WA No.1018 of 2012 WA No.1019 of 2012 WA No.1028 of 2012 WA No.1029 of 2012 WA No.1030 of 2012 WA No.1038 of 2012 WA No.1039 of 2012 WA No.1040 o14. 5.2013. Shri A.M.Trivedi, Sr.cousnel with Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra for the appellants. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari for the respondents. This batch of appeals is arising out of common order dt.17.7.2012 passed by the writ court in WP No.5437/2006(S).WP No.11282/2006(S).WP No.13804/2005(S).WP No.15488/2005(S).WP No.15489/2005(S).WP No.15493/2005(S).WP No.15494/2005(S).WP No.15495/2005(S).WP NO.15496/2005(S) WP No.15498/2005(S).WP No.15500/2005(S).WP No.6626/2006(S).WP No.6627/2006(S).WP No.6628/2006(S) and WP No.7150/2006(S).The learned single Judge has found that the cancellation of the selection process for the post of Jail Warden, Central Jail, Rewa was fully justified as there were serious illegalities and regularities in the selection and while ...
Sudama Prasad Shrivas Vs. Shri D.P.Ahuja
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
Conc. No.1673 / 2012 (Sudama Prasad Shrivas v. Shri D.P.Ahuja & otheRs.14-05-2012 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this application alleging disobedience and contempt of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10954/2012(s).dated 1-8-2012. The respondents have filed a return and stated that as the issue is already pending before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1676/2009 which has granted an interim order, no further steps in the matter has been taken by the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also stated that the company has already filed an application for review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10954/2012(s) which is pending decision. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. The application for contempt filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismisse...
Ram Niwas Pandey Vs. Jai Narayan Kansotiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
C.P.No.1846/12 14.05.2013 None for the applicant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. This contempt petition has been filed by the applicant alleging non-compliance and disobedience of the order passed by this court on 10.09.2012 in W.P.No.14622/12(S).The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suspension of the applicant has been revoked by order dated 09.01.2013, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure R/1, and therefore, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present application. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, I find no reason to take up any contempt proceedings against the respondents, the application is accordingly dismissed by recording the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Babulal Ram Sharma Vs. S.K. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
C.P.No.1910/12 14.05.2013 Shri Arvind Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. This contempt petition has been filed by the applicant alleging non-compliance and disobedience of the order passed by this court on 16.04.2012 in W.P.No.5793/12. It is submitted that though the respondents have filed a return and have reimbursed the amount of Rs.41796/- deducted from the petitioner's retiral dues, however, the petitioner's pension has not been re-fixed thereby committing contempt of the order passed by this court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order dated 16.04.2012 passed by this court in W.P.No.5793/12, it is observed that this court had nowhere directed re-fixation of pension or to decide any other issue but had simply disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the applicant to re-submit the representation before the respondents which was directed to be decided within 90 da...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »