Madhya Pradesh Court June 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. Nannibai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
F.A.No.387/2013 26/06/2013 Shri K.S.Jha, learned counsel for the appellants. Default pointed out by the office is over-ruled. Appeal is admitted for hearing. Call for the records from the court below. List for hearing along with the records. Notice be issued on I.A.No.6197/2013, an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. Considering the fact that the appellants are still in possession and Respondent No.1 is interfering with the appellants' possession, status-quo with regard to the property in question, as is existing today, is directed to be maintained till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge Judge nd...
Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
W.P.No.10452/2013 Suresh Kumar Gupta vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 26.06.2013 Heard Shri D.K.Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Helper, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.6.2013 by which he has been transferred from Lovkush Nagar, Division Khajuraho to STC Division Chhatarpur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's wife is suffering from chronic mental disorder and is under treatment at Mental Hospital, Gwalior. It is further submitted that the representation, filed by the petitioner, before the respondent authorities has not been decided till date. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent authorities alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within fifteen days from today, t...
Rajneesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Rajnees versus State of M.P.Criminal Appeal No.414 25. 06.2013. Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I.For 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-. Appellant has been found to be in possession of 6 grams smack/heroin, contracted substance, which was seized from him. Having heard rival contention and on going through the records and taking note of statement of PW-1, the prosecution witness, who has seized the material, namely Dwarka Prasad Police Constable, the witness to the Panchnama prpared P.W.-2 Jagdish Sahu, P.W.3 Gopal Rajput and material available on record no case is made out for acquittal of appellant. However, the fact that have come on record indicates that the quantity of psychotropic substance seized is less than 6 graMs.as is evident from Exhibit P-25 FSL report and thi...
Ramkripal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No :363. of 2006 Ramkripal Patel - V/s - State of Madhya Pradesh Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer, for the State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.JUDGMENT 25/06/2013 Appellant Ramkripal Patel, who has been convicted to undergo 10 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of `3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months, for an offence under section 20(b)(ii)(B).of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. 2- Appellant was apprehended on 16.8.2005, at about 6.15 in the evening by a Constable posted in Mouganj at a place 7 Kms away in Village Behr...
D.D.Tripathi Vs. Central Government Ind.Tribunal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
WP No.580/99 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Writ Petition No.580 OF 199.D.D. Tripathi. Versus Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others ______________________________________________ Shri Aakash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhijeet Bhomick, learned counsel for the respondents. ______________________________________________ PRESENT : Honble Shri R.S. Jha, J.: ORDER (25-06-2013) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the award dated 27.8.1998 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case not CGIT/LC/R/60/91 whereby punishment for dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Storekeeper in Rungta Colliery of SECL at Sohagpur, when he was served a charge-sheet on WP No.580/99 29.2.1998 levelling charges of negligence in performance of duty and deliber...
Dr. V.S. Jiamini Vs. Vinod Kumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Writ Petition No.9978/13 25.6.2013 Shri G.S.Dikhit, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India (the same appears to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) being aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.2013, passed by 15th Additional District Judge Bhopal, in regular Civil Suit No.194-A/11 whereby, his application for adjournment has been allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- on which the petitioner has come this Court with this petition to set aside the order till the extent of imposition of cost. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the impugned order argued that the cause stated in the application by the petitioner for adjournment has not been properly considered. In continuation he said that, in any case, the cost of Rs.3,000/- is very high amount. The same is not sustainable and prayed ...
Satya Narayan Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
W.P.No.4870/2010(S) Satya Narayan Mishra vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 25.06.2013 Shri Rajesh Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri B.K.Bais learned counsel for respondent no.6. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in the present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in W.P No.5389/2002 and connected matteRs.Annexure P-3, decided on 17.7.2007, which squarely covers the issue raised by the petitioner and is against him, submits that the issue raised by the petitioner appears to be squarely covered and, therefore, the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant in accordance with and in line with the decision of the State Government dated 12.5.1998 and 23.5.1998 as has been ordered by this ...
Laddoopeda @ Omprakash Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Cr.A.No.1513/2007 25/6/2013: This is a jail appeal received directly and counsel Smt. Nirmala Nayak was appointed by the Legal Service Authority. As on date as Smt. Nirmala Nayak is a Government Advocate she is unable to prosecute the matter. However, Smt. Sushma Pandey, learned counsel present in the Court is appointed as a counsel and she is heard on appeal. Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer appears for the State. Having heard Smt. Sushma Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, even though Smt. Sushma Pandey tried to emphasize that the allegations against the appellant and offence under Section 333 and 353 IPC is not made out but on a perusal of the statement of witnesses available on record it is seen that the appellant was a member of unlawful assembly and he has actively participated in the assault etc.which took place in unlawful assembly as a result various police officials including Constable Pramod Kumar, Constable Chandrabhan and Hariram have sustained serious injurie...
Saroj Kuamr Sharma Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
W.P.No.9422/2010 Saroj Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 25.06.2013 Shri V.K.Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri B.K.Bais learned counsel for respondent no.8. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in the present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in W.P No.5389/2002 and connected matteRs.Annexure P-4, decided on 17.7.2007, which squarely covers the issue raised by the petitioner and is against him, submits that the issue raised by the petitioner appears to be squarely covered and, therefore, the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant in accordance with and in line with the decision of the State Government dated 12.5.1998 and 23.5.1998 as has been ordered by this Court in...
M/S Shivam Glass and Photo Framing Vs. Authorised Officer Punjab Natio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Writ Petition No.10515/13 25.6.2013 Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ to quash the impugned auction notice dated 16.5.2013 (Annexure-P-6) issued by the respondent no.1 with a further prayer to regularize the account so that the petitioner may pay the entire loan amount and also do his business by the amount of loan. Initially the case was argued at length for admission, but in response of the query of the Court from the counsel asking that in view of availability of alternate forum i.e.Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of the dispute raised in this petition, how this petition could be entertained and any interim or final order could be passed by this Court on which, after perusing the concerning provision of the appeal under Section 17 of SARFESAI, instead to argue further he seeks permission to withd...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »