Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.Deman Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.3570/2008 Smt. Deman Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ None for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (31/07/2013) The petitioner, said to be a candidate for appointment on the post of Aaganwadi Worker, has come before this Court in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ventilating her grievance against the order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the respondent No.2, Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, allowing the revision of respondent No.5 and setting aside the order of the Collector, Balaghat, by which the petitioner was directed to be appo...
Kailash Chand Badel Vs. Shaiki Alias Prashant
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Cr.A.No.1679/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Satendra Singh Tiwari, Advocates for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.4-State. Heard on I.A.No.17564/12, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 40 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 25/4/12 passed by XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.332/2011, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 in alternative 302/34 and 364 in alternative 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3/4/11 at about 9.50 a.m., a repor...
Umesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. J.P. Cement Bhiali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
W.P.No.12363/2013 (U.K.Tiwari versus J.Cement) 31.07.2013 Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length submits that the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the Labour Court, Satna to decide the Case No.11/ID Act/2013 pending before it within a specific period of time. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner moves an application for urgent hearing, the concerned Labour Court shall consider the same and thereafter proceed to decide the matter as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months thereafter. With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Rajkumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
W.P.No.1379/2011 Raj Kumar Shukla vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 31.07.2013 Shri Ajeet Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that he has not been included in the selection process for appointment on the post of Patwari in District Tikamgarh simply on the ground that the registration card of the Employment Exchange produced by him is of 5.8.2010 whereas the last cut -off date fixed by the respondents calling for applications and for possessing qualification was 7.7.2010. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner infact possessed the Employment Exchange Registration Card from Bhopal of the year 2005 and, therefore, his case should have been considered on that basis and on the basis of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ved Prakash Sharma & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.(W.P No.841/2010(S).dec...
M/S Jhajharia Nirman Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
1 M/s Jhajharia Nirman PVT.LTD.versus Union of India and another W.P.No.21872/12 31/07/13 Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondent Railway Administration. Challenging the action of the respondents in recovering Royalty from the petitioner said to be contrary to Clause 8.2 of the agreement in question, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is a proprietary concerned and is engaged in construction work for railways and other departments. A tender was floated by the Railway administration for supply and stacking of 65 mtn machine crushed hard and durable track stone and ballast. As per Railways specification, the contract included the work of lead, lift and payment of Royalty duty etc and the agreement was entered into between the parties. According to the petitioner, he has been supplying the material and running bills have been submitted by him but from the various running bills as is indicated in para 5.6, roya...
Satyendra Singh Chouhan Vs. Central Bank of India Tilwaraghat Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
W.P.No.12835/2013 31/07/2013 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur and the Debt Appellate Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad as contained in Annexure-P5 dated 16.4.2013 and Annexure-P6 dated 6.5.2013 in the matter of postponing a decision with regard to certain objections raised by the petitioner on the question of admissibility of certain documents, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Respondent/Bank has filed the claim in question before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur and the claim pertains to recovery of more than 19 Lacs from the petitioner. In the said proceedings, certain documents were filed by the Bank, which according to the petitioner are inadmissible evidence and it was also said that the secondary evidence with regard to the documents is adduced contrary to law, therefore, they cannot be relied upon. Contending that the documents are not admissible evidence and they cann...
Roopchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Writ Petition No.12102/2013 (Roopchand versus State of M.P.& otheRs.31-07-2013 Shri Bhoopesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Jain, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. Heard the learned appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to take up scrutiny of the cases in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Appeal No.1202/2010 decided on 15-12-2010 and also give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before the scrutiny committee to establish that his appointment may be irregular at best but not illegal and thereafter take a decision in the matter expeditiously in accordance with law within a fixed period of time. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the authorities have in fact passed the impugned order dated 31-5-2013/0-6-2013 with a view to ensure compli...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vijay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
M.Cr.C.No.392/2012. 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. This application for grant of leave to file appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 24/09/11 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in Sessions Trial No.275/2010, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 394 & 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and under Section 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20/06/2009 at about 4.45 pm, complainant Bhagwandas Kushwaha, Ramesh Yadav and Ramsevak were returning on their Motor cycle not MP-36-MA-4274 to their Village Nuna after withdrawing Rs.10,000/- from Lodhoura, Post Office. At that time, four unknown persons, riding on two Motorcycles, armed with Katta came there and intercepted the Motorcycle of the complainant. One of them ...
Shyam Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Writ Petition No.13097/2013 (Shyam Kumar Singh ..versus State of M.P.& otheRs.31-07-2013 Shri R.N.Singh, learned senior counsel with Shri Saurabh Sunder, for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the intervener. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner on I.A.Nos.10713/2013 and 10726/2013 to bring the subsequent documents on record. For the reasons mentioned therein the applications are allowed. Also heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the initial order dated 19-7-2013 whereby the respondent No.3 has been transferred and posted as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni and the subsequent order dated 22-7-2013 by which the petitioner has been transferred to Bhopal as OSD in the Urban Administration Department. It is submitted that the petitioner had previously assailed the order dated 19-7-2013 transferring the respond...
Ganpat Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Cr.A.No.825/2012 & M.Cr.C.No.5549/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Saleem Rehman, Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A.No.825/12. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-State in Cr.A.No.825/12, as well as, for applicant-State in M.Cr.C.No.5549/12. Heard on admission. Judgment, under challenge, being the same, this common order shall govern the disposal of aforementioned appeal and application for leave to appeal. Cr.A.No.825/12 has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code.).whereas M.Cr.C.No.5549/12 is an application, under Section 378(3) of the Code, against the judgment dated 10/2/12 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No.84/11, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.1.11, at about 3 p.m., when Kanch...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »