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. Sheeba Malik Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISON BENCH WRIT PETITION No.20268/2012 Smt. Sheeba Malik, wife of Mukhtar Malik, aged 42 years, resident of 34 Meel Obedullaganj, District Raisen, at present r/o 66, Tolwali Masjid, Alok Press Road, Police Station Tallaiya, District Bhopal, M.P. Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Home and Internal Affairs, New Delhi.2. State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Secretary, Department of Home and Internal Affairs, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P.3. Collector/District Magistrate, Bhopal, M.P.4. Superintendent of Police, Bhopal, M.P. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner: Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Advocate, with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate. For the respondents: Shri R.S. Siddiqui, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondent No.1. Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate, for the respondents No.2 to 4. ------------------------------------------...
Dargah Committee, Ajmer Vs. Dargah Committee, Dargah Khwaja Sahab Peer ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
1 R.P.No.504/13 29/07/13 Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for respondent No.1 even though served and represented by counsel. The matter was taken up on Friday when at the request of learned counsel for the respondent, the case was adjourned for today. Today, when the case was taken in the two rounds also, none has appeared. This application has been filed pointing out certain error factual in nature which has occurred when W.P.No.3172/08 was dismissed by this Court on 9/05/13. We have heard Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant, perused the record and we are deciding this review application based on the material available on record. Applicant herein are the plaintiff in the original suit that was filed being Civil Suit No.26-A/06 and was pending before the District Judge at Harda. In the said suit, non-applicant No.1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. r/w Section 151 C.P.C. This application was rejected by the learn...
Smt. Rekha Bai Bundela Vs. Dharam Singh Bundela
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Cr.A.No.1618/2011 29.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Satish Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.2-State. 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 23/11/10 passed by Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.1/2008, whereby respondent no.1 Dharamsingh has been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 1/11/07, FiRs.Information Report (Ex.P/19) at Police Station Suatala was lodged by complainant Komal to the effect that his son Narayan Singh had gone to Gadhawala field Pipariyahaar at about 8 p.m.for irrigation purposes. Next day in the morning, her grand-daughter Pipariya informed that Narayan Singh was lying near the well and blood was oozing from his head. She reached the spot and saw that Narayan, ...
Dhaniram Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Writ Petition No.12767/2013 (Dhaniram Yadav & others ..versus State of M.P.& otheRs.29-07-2013 Shri C.M.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.M.P.S.Chuckal, learned P.L., for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioners are not being permitted to participate in the counselling being conducted for making appointments on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade- III though the petitioners are over qualified having obtained a B.Ed. degree. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after a perusal of the petition it is observed on a statement to that effect being being made by the learned counsel for the State, that similar petitions wherein the petitioners had raised the same issue, have been dismissed by this Court with observations in the case of Sanyogita Thakur and others v. State of M.P.and otheRs.reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 20 and without any observations in W.P...
Pramod Kuamr Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
W.P.No.12688/2013 (P.K.Shrivastava versus State of MP and otheRs.29.07.2013 Heard Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12.07.2013 by which the petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Programme Officer in Janpad Panchayat, Ghoparu, Shahdol has been transferred to District Balaghat under the policy of rationalization. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from a perusal of the impugned order dated 12.07.2013 it is clear that the aforesaid exercise has been undertaken by the respondents/authorities in view of the fact that against a single post of Assistant Programme Officer, more than one person is working in several Janpad Panchayats in the State and with a view to ensure that only one assistant programme officer works in a Janpad Panchayat, the order has been issued but while doing so, the authorities have totally overlooked th...
Suneel Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
W.P.No.12800 / 2013 (Suneel Tiwari & others ..Vs..State of MP & otheRs.29-07-2013 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Ms.MPS Chuckal, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioners are not being permitted to participate in the counselling being conducted for making appointments on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III though the petitioners are over qualified having obtained a B.Ed. degree. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after a perusal of the petition it is observed on a statement to that effect being being made by the learned counsel for the State, that similar petitions wherein the petitioners had raised the same issue, have been dismissed by this Court with observations in the case of Sanyogita Thakur and others v. State of M.P.and otheRs.reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 20 and without any observations in W.P.No.6129/2013 (S)....
Mulchand Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Second Appeal No.551/1999 29.07.2013 Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel with Mr. B.R. Koshta, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on I.A. No.1394/2013, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant was in Government service, therefore, he could not produce the documents which are necessary for fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the appeal.2. I have considered the submission. From perusal of the documents annexed with the application, it is evident that the same are photo-copies. No satisfactory explanation has been offered by the appellant for not filing the same either before the trial Court or before the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to file the documents at such belated stage. Accordingly, I.A. No.1394/2013 is dismissed. Heard on the question of admission.3. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, who has lost in both t...
Mahila Dhyan Vidyapeeth Vs. Shri N.V.S. Rajpoot
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
1 CONC.NO.1940/2011 29/07/2013 Shri S.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Alleging willful disobedience of order dated 21.09.2007 passed in W.P No.11698/2007 present Contempt Petition is filed seeking action against respondent. Writ Petition was disposed of in the following terMs.Considering the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (1) Petitioner may submit the title deeds to establish its title over the piece of land which is required by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, for the purpose of widening of the road. (2) Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, would earmark the part of the property belonging to the petitioner which is required for the purpose of widening of the road. Thereafter, the petitioner shall 2 CONC.NO.1940/2011 handover the same to the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, within a week. If such property is not handed over by the petitioner, Municipal Corporation would be within...
Narendra Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
W.P.No.12869/2013 (Narendra Khare ..versus State of MP and another) 29-07-2013 Heard Shri Ajay Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner, who is a Panchayat Secretary has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12-7-2013 by which he has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Garhipadriya, Janpad Panchayat Panna, District Panna to Gram Panchayat Deorigarhi, Janpad Panchayat Panna, District Panna. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no proposal for transferring the petitioner either by the Gram Panchayat or the Janpad Panchayat not has the petitioner applied for transfer and in such circumstances it is alleged that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is contrary to the rules as well as the policy made by the State Government for transfer of Panchayat Secretaries. A Division Bench of this Court in R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that in case...
Devnarayan Verma Vs. Nannu Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Cr.A.No.1777/2013 26.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Ku. Mamta Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent no.3-State. Heard on I.A.No.16752/13, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As per office note, the appeal is barred by 24 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The appeal is arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Record of the trial Court has already been received. Let bailable warrant of arrest in the sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand).be issued against each one of respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely Nannulal and Mithun, for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 4/9/13 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard. Matter be listed, along with connected Cr.A.No.1306/13, for final hearing in due course. (AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »