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.
Roshan Kumar Ahuja Vs. Vijay Kumar Jayaswal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Cr.R.No.1083/2013 24/06/2013 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Revision is admitted for hearing. Heard on I.A.No.13452/2013. Call for the records from the court below. List for hearing along with the records. Considering the fact that the appellant has already in jail for one month and he has deposited a sum of `3,50,000/-, appellant (Roshan Kumar Ahuja) be directed to release in bail and operation of the sentence of conviction is directed to be suspended on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 3rd of September, 2013 and on such other dates as may be ordered. With the aforesaid, I.A.No.13452/2013 stands allowed and disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Mukesh Kumar Lohariya Vs. P.K. Mehata
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
1 C.P.No.624/2013 24.6.2013 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel with Shri V.V.Bawar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Alleging willful disobedience of order dated 22.2.2013 passed in W.P.No.2715/2013 present contempt petition has been filed for initiating action against respondents. W.P.No.2715/2013 was disposed of on following terMs.Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case it is directed that in case the petitioner filed a representation to the contempt authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation.Till the representation is decided, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Junnardeo. On being noticed, respondents have filed their response wherein...
Amit Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.10476/2013 (S) (Amti Marawi ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.24-06-2013 Heard Shri Vivek Rusia learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Grade-III in the Office of the District Programme Officer, ICDS, Mandla, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 17-5-2012 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Mandla to Katni. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation (Annexure P-2) against the impugned order of transfer before the respondent No.3 but the same has not been decided by the authority till date. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition to the concerned authority within a week of obtaining the same, the...
Ajay Servaiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Ajay Servaiya versus State of M.P.& Another Criminal Revision No.1851 24. 06.2013. Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Nishant Datt, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akshay Namdev, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on I.A.No.9232/2013. On 7.4.2008 a Bench of this Court directed that this revision petition be listed before same Bench which had passed certain orders earlier in Criminal Revision No.437/1995. Thereafter Hon'ble the Chief Justice on his administrative side passed an order assigning the case to a particular Bench for hearing. The assigned Bench heard the case on 9.5.2008, admitted it, grated interim stay and directed for listing the revision petition for final hearing in the week commencing 7.7.2008. The matter was listed, but no hearing could take place for the reasons which are not available on record. Be that as it may be, when the case was listed on 1.3.2013, on the ground that not had appeared for the applicant, stay granted on 9.5.2008 by the ass...
Trivikramacharya Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
1 W.P.No.10591/2013. Writ Petition No.10591/2013. 24.6.2013 . Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned PL for the respondent No.1, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 4.6.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the order dated 19.12.2001 (Ann. P.2).passed by the Commissioner in Second Appeal of Revenue Case affirming the order dated 13.5.1992 (Ann. P.3) passed by the S.D.O. in the fiRs.appeal of Revenue Case whereby the order dated 25.9.90 (Ann. P.4).passed by the Tahsildar in the Revenue Case No.31/A/6/A/89-90, allowing the application of the petitioner filed under Section 116 of the MPLRC the revenue officials were directed to record the possession of the petition in revenue record on the disputed land recorded in the name of the State, has been set aside. In the couRs.of the arguments, in the available...
Gokul Prasad Patel Vs. Madhyanchal GramIn Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.10648 / 2013 (Gokul Prasad Patel .versus Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Sagar & anr.) 24-06-2013 Heard Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition against an oral/telephonic communication made by the Regional Manager of the bank/respondent No.1. to the petitioner directing him to report at Sagar Branch of the respondent/bank as he has been transferred from Rewa to Sagar. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned communication is in violation of the transfer policy. The petitioner claims parity with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9497/2013(S).dated 3-6-2013, whereby the respondent/authorities have been directed to decide the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of transfer within six weeks and till then the impugned transfer order shall remain in abeyance so far as it relates to the petitioner. In the circumstances, without entering into th...
Girdhari Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Cr.R.No.844/2013 24/06/2013 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging his conviction under Section 324 of IPC and sentence to undergo 3 months R.I.passed by the trial court and upheld by the fiRs.appellate court, appellant has filed this revision. Having heard Shri Avinash Zargar and Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned counsel for the State and on going through the records, it is seen that for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and the conviction of 3 months R.I., applicant has already undergone jail sentence of 1 month and 24 days. Keeping in view the aforesaid, interest of justice would be met in case, the conviction is upheld and jail sentence already undergone is confirmed. Accordingly, this revision is allowed in part. Even though, the conviction under Section 324 of IPC is upheld, the fine amount is increased from `1,000/- to `1,500/- and the jail sentence modified/ reduced to the one already unde...
Smt. Aarti Pandey Vs. Varun Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
1 W.P.No.1404 of 2013 W.P.No.1404 o24. 6.2013 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastav, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Tripathi, counsel for the respondent. The petitioner/ defendant (wife) has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.12 passed by the Ist Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in RCS No.271-A/2012 whereby her application filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marrige Act for the sum of interim alimony, in the proceedings instituted by the respondent/ plaintiff ( husband) under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in part till the extent of traveling expenses, the remaining part of the same for grant of interim monthly alimony as maintenance, has been refused.2. Counsel for the parties are heard at length.3. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record said that there is no any order of the competent forum or the court to show that at any point of time the petitioner after taking some lump-some amount has relinquished her rig...
Smt. Annapoorna Devi Vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.18396/2011 Smt. Annapoorna Devi vs. S.E.C.L & ORS.1 24.06.2013 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel with Shri K. Rohan for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming compassionate appointment in place of her husband Shri Aadi Narayan who died while in service of the respondents on 6.8.2001. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been pressing her case before the respondents since the very beginning and the respondents have been exchanging letters but no concrete action has been taken by them. It is submitted that the petitioner is the legally married wife of Late Shri Aadi Narayan and she has also been granted all other service benefits of Late Shri Aadi Narayan on his death but her claim for compassionate appointment has not been considered on account of the fact that previously the service record of Late Shri Aadi Narayan mentions the name of his wife as...
Anupam Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Writ Appeal No.383/2013 (Anupam Shukla versus State of M.P.and otheRs.24.6.2013 Shri Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, on 17-6-2013 we had requested the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State to seek instructions whether the appellant and the respondent No.4 both, can be accommodated at Pawai. In reply to it an affidavit has been filed by the State on 22-6-2013 wherein in para 2 it is stated thus: 2. That, in accordance with the direction given by this Hon'ble Court the vacancy position of Sub-Engineers has been verified and it has been verified and it has been found that the appellant as well as respondent No.4 both can be accommodated in Sub-Division, Pawai and necessary order in this regard will be issued by the competent authority if this Hon'ble Court considers and direc...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »