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.
Reeta Kureel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.8560/2013 (Reeta Kureel and others versus State of MP and otheRs.28.06.2013 Heard Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging that they possess all the necessary and requisite qualifications as prescribed by the advertisement and the rules and have qualified in the eligibility examination for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III but they have not been called for counselling. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the act of the respondents is illegal as the petitioners are fully qualified and are entitled to be called for counselling. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and in view of the order passed by this court in W.P.No.17684/12 on 13.06.2013, keeping the concept of parity in mind, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioners file the representations along wit...
Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
M.C.C. No.80/13 28/06/13 Shri V.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.This application has been filed seeking extension of time to submit the representation and to get a decision from the Mission Director in pursuance to the order passed on 7/03/07 in W.P.No.1011/02. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Mission Director to take a decision on the representation of the petitioneRs.It is stated that even though, an order was passed on 7/03/07 but as counsel did not inform the petitioners about the order being passed, petitioners were prevented from submitting an appropriate representation. It is stated that only recently the petitioners came to knot about the order being passed and, therefore, the prayer made is that some time be given to them to submit the representation. Keeping in view the aforesaid and finding the prayer to be bonafide, it is directed that if representation is filed in pursuance to the directions passed on 7/03/07 in W.P.No.1011/02 wit...
Akhilesh Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.16386/2011 Akhilesh Singh Baghel Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for the respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Vineeta Sahu, learned Counsel for respondents No.5 & 6. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (28/06/2013) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Village Employment Assistant vide an order dated 13.10.2010 and was posted in Gram Panchayat, Madwa. The petitioner gave his joining pursuant to his said order of appointment and started working. However, because of ill-will of the respondents No.5 and 6, he was not being paid any honorarium and several requests were made by him before the Chief Executive Officer o...
Smt. Pyari Bai Dhimar Vs. Jagole Dhimar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
Writ Petition No.10380/2012 27.06.2013 Shri R.K. Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned PL for respondent no.6. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 being co-defendant with the petitioner in the trial court and none of them have challenged the impugned order, hence their presence are not required to adjudicate this matter. The same could be effectively adjudicated only in presence of the petitioners and respondent No.1- plaintiff, thus, the service of notice to such respondents nos. 2 to 5, if the same have not been served, is dispensed with. This matter is listed today for admission as well as for final disposal, hence with the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. ORDER 1. The petitioners- some of the defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 24.4.2012, (Ann. P-1) passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Jatara, district ...
Gajanand Batania Vs. Shri S.N. Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 C.P.No.976/2012 27.6.2013 Shri R.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Pandey, learned Dy.Govt.Advocate for respondent State. Alleging willful disobedience of order dated 13/2/2012 passed in W.P.No.2119/2012 petitioner has filed this petition seeking initiation of action against the respondents. W.P.No.2119/2012 was disposed of in following terMs.Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order, respondents no.1, 2 and 3 shall reconsider the question of suspension of the petitioner and after taking note of the revocation of suspension issued in the case of the other employees as is evident from Annexure P/15 dated 6.12.2010 pass a speaking order with regard to continuation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. On being noticed respondents have filed their 2 res...
Niranjan Singh Vs. Ajay Tirki
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 C.P.No.1071/2012 27/06/2013 Shri Narendra Sharm a learned counsel for the petitio ne r. Shri Rajesh Tiwari learned co unsel for the respon de n ts. Allegin g disobedience of order dated 19.03.2010 pass ed in WP 10966/2009 and order dated 21.04.2011 in Contem pt Petitio n No.1299/2010 pres en t petitio n has been filed for taking action agains t respo ndents. Vide decision in writ petitio n the petitio ner was to be rein stated as Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kalm e s ara, Janpad Panchayat Sohagpur which he was on 19.04. 2011 which led to dropping of Co nte m pt Proceedings. Subs equently, the petitioner was remo ved from the pos t of Panchayat Karmi vide resolutio n date d 07/06/2011 whereagainst petitio ner preferred an appe al before Sub Divisional Officer, So hagpur, who by his order dated 03.01.2012, ...
Ramjas Chouksey Vs. V.S.Tomar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 Conc. No. 163 Of 2013 27.6.2013 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Tabrej Sheikh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Alleging willful disobedience of order dated 31.8.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 5975/2010 (S), petitioners have filed this petition seeking action against respondents. Writ Petition No. 5975/2010 (S) was disposed of on 31.8.2012 in the following terMs.In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of their appointment and to extend them the consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during pendency of the instant petition, the respondent No. 2 University passed a resolution to regularise the services of the petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 4 submitted that necessary action...
Maharishi Balmik Mahila Prathmik Upbhogta Sahkari Bhandar Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
Writ Petition No.10654/13 24.6.2013 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner-Cooperative Society has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the notice dated 12.4.2013, published at the instance of the Office of Collector Food, Branch Bhopal by the District Supply Controller Bhopal (Annexure-P-2).to call the application for allotment of Fair Price Shop under M.P.Public Distribution Scheme (Control) order 2009 (in short the Order 2009.) and also for quashment of the condition no.1.13 mentioned in the application form (Annexure-P-3) whereby, the limit of ration cards of different description has been fixed upto 1,000/- only. Initially the case was argued at length, but in the couRs.of arguments on asking the petitioners counsel whether the representation of the petitioner-Society Annexure-P-5, filed in the office of the respondents authorities has been considered and adjudicated on merits. On which, he fairly submit...
Deepak Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
[1]. Criminal Revision No.727/2013 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.727/2013 Deepak Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S. Solanki, J Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER [27.6.2013].1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 10.4.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Umariya in S.T. No.18/2013 whereby three applications filed by the applicant have been rejected.2. It is not in dispute that the applicant is facing trial for an offence punishable under Sections 376, 328 of the IPC before Sessions Court, Umariya. It is also not in dispute that at present the case has reached to the stage of defence. The applicant has filed three applications on 25.3.2013. First application was filed inter-alia pleading that it has been brought in the statement of defen...
Anokhilal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Criminal Reference No.4/2013 In Reference Vs. Anokhilal Criminal Appeal No.748/2013 Anokhilal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh For the State : Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For the Accused/ : Shri K. S. Rajput, Advocate Appellant Present: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE JUDGMENT (27.6.2013) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by: Ajit Singh, J.The Sessions Judge, Khandwa, by his judgment dated 4.3.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No.53/2013 has sentenced accused Anokhilal to death for committing the murder of a minot girl, aged nine years, after raping and performing carnal sex with her. He has also convicted the accused for offences under sections 376(2)(f), 363, 366 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and other terms of imprisonment with fine stipulations. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The Sessions Judge has, therefore, made a refer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »