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.
Surendra Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 7526 Of 2013 15.5.2013 Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner vide this petition seeks quashment of order dated 21.9.2012 (Annexure P12) and 21.2.2013 (Annexure P13).Vide Annexure P12 Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh State Employment Guarantee Council has called upon Commissioner to cause a fact finding enquiry in respect of misuse the fund allocated under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and take action against the persons found guilty; whereas, order dated 21.2.2013 is in fact an F.I.R lodged with the Superintendent of Police for setting the criminal machinery in motion against the persons who are found prima facie guilty of misusing of the fund allocated under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. It is contended by the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated and the F.I.R lodged against him...
Mansi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Lugasi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Mansi Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Lugasi & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :9325. 15. 05.2013. Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, leanred Panel Lawyer for the State. Against the impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 18.4.2013 passed by respondent No.6 petitioner has submitted various representations to the Collector and as the matter is still pending before the Collector, for the present, without entering into controveRs.on merits, the Collector, respondent No.2 is directed to look into grievance of petitioner and decide it in accordance to law by a speaking order within two months. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Union of India Vs. M/S Maihar Cement
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
---1--- W.A.No.616/2012 14.5.2013 Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel with Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned counsel for the respondent. This writ appeal is being decided by common order passed today in Writ Appeal No.645/2012- Union of India and others versus M/s Maihar Cement. For the reasons assigned in the order, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A photocopy of order be retained on the record of this Appeal. On the prayer of certified copy in this appeal, office to supply certified copy of main order passed in Writ Appeal No.645/2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Acting Chief Justice Judge AK...
Dayaram Malviya 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 ...
Nannu @ Mukesh Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.792/2004 Nannu @ Mukesh VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Yogesh Soni, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 14th day of May, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 24.4.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Damoh in criminal appeal No.1/2004, whereby the conviction directed against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC was maintained but, sentence was reduced to the period of Till Rising Court with fine of Rs.3,000/-.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 30.4.2000, at about 11.30 p.m., the victim Gulzar Prasad who was a co-te...
Halkeram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
1 Cr. R. No.1216/2005 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR BEFORE : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL. J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1216 OF 2005.Petitioner : Halkeram, S/o Shri Chirangilal Rai, aged about 70 years, R/o Village Khabra, Tehsil Majhouli, Distt. Jabalpur. Versus. . Respondents : State of M. P. Through P. S. Raisen. For the petitioner : Shri Salim Ahmad, Advocate For the respondent : Smt. Pratibha Mishra P. L. ORDER (Passed on 14.5.2013) 1. The petitioner has preferred present revision petition against judgment dated 18.8.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sehora in Criminal Appeal not unregistered/2005, affirming conviction of petitioner under Section 325 of IPC. Appellate Court has modified and reduced the period of jail sentence from six months to three months RI only. Vide judgment dated 21.7.2005, JMFC Sihora convicted the petitioner under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to six months RI with fine of Rs.500/-.2. According to prosecution, on 19.11996 at about 11.45 a. m....
Radhey Shyam Awasya 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 ...
Birja Prasad Shrivastava (Retrd Office Assistant Gr-iii) Vs. Shri D.P. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
Conc. No.1708 / 2012 (Birja Pd. Shrivastava v. Shri D.P.Ahuja & otheRs.14-05-2013 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.10958/2012(s).dated 27-7-2012. The respondents have filed a return and stated that as the issue regarding absorption of the petitioner and other employees of the society is pending adjudication before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1676/2009 in which an interim order has been passed staying the proceedings and in such circumstances the respondents are unable to take any final decision in the matter. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the pendency of W.P.No.1676/2009 before the Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. The application for contempt filed by the petitioner being meritless is a...
Lal Singh 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 ...
Mishra and Patel Dril.Comp.Cum Dur.Borwe Vs. the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-2013
1 W.P.No.11045/2006 Mishra and Patel Drilling Company State of M.P.& others and others 14.5.2013 Shri Atulanand Awasthy, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.AG for respondents/State. This matter relates to tender process for the year 2006-07 and it appears that by the efflux of time, this petition has rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that at present he is having no instructions and liberty be granted to him to seek revival of the petition, in case lis still survives. Prayer is not opposed, hence it is allowed. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous, with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) C. Acting Chief Justice Judge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »