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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Meharban Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Cr.A.No.573/2000 24.7.2013 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the appellant-State. Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the respondents. Heard on I.A.No.18221/12, which is an application under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to release the seized article viz. 12 bore double barrel gun, in favour of respondent no.2 Chuttan. Record of the trial Court perused. In the last para of the impugned judgment, it was ordered by the trial Court that the said gun, be returned to Chuttan on the condition of producing valid licence. Learned Government Advocate has not opposed the prayer. We are of the considered view that for deciding the appeal on merits, the aforesaid seized article would not be required. Therefore, in the interests of justice, the application is allowed and it is directed that on production of a valid licence of the aforesaid gun by respondent no.2 Chuttan S/o Narayan Singh Thakur in his name before the trial Court, the said gun be released in...
Pradeep Kumar Jha Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Pradeep Kumar Jha versus Comptroller & Auditor General of India & ORS.Writ Petition No.11833 24. 7.2013 Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the order dated 2.7.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur dismissing an application filed by the petitioner, challenging an order of transfer, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is a Senior Divisional Account Officer working under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and was posted in W.R.D.Division No.2 Shahdol. Vide order Annexure P-3 dated 18.6.2013 petitioner has been transferred to Kunti Dam Kajwa, Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur. Interalia contending that as per the transfer policy applicable in the establishment in question petitioner had given option for his posting in 5 distinct places, as well as station like Chhatarpur and he posted to a station for which he had not opted. Pointing out that once the transfer policy contemplates a provision for posti...
Rajendra Prasad Saxena Vs. Rewa Sidhi GramIn Bank and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.1330/2001 Rajendra Prasad Saxena. -Versus- Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and another. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. ORDER (24.07.2013) 1: The petitioner, an employee of the erstwhile Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for brevity).has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition seeking a direction against the respondents to regularise the period of absence of petitioner with effect from 7.8.1993 to 1.10.1996, treating it to be spent on duty and to pay the entire salary of the said period. It is contended by the petitioner that he entered into the services of the Bank in the year 1979. However, looking to certain circumstances in which the petitioner was compelled to function, he was forced to resign from the services of the Bank on 22.11.1982. Though ...
Kailash Bai Vs. Phool Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
1 W.P. 8802/2013 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Single Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA W.P. No.8802/2013 PETITIONERS 1 Kailash Bai, W/o late Karodilal 2. Ajay, S/o late Karodilal 3. Ku. Sangita, D/o late Karodilal All R/o Vishwakarma Nagar, Karond Chouraha, near Post Office, Bhanpur Byepass Road, Bhopal, M.P. Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Phool Singh, S/o late Khushilal, R/o Village Karond Kala, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal, M.P.2. Umri Bai, W/o late Khushilal 3. Ramesh, S/o late Khushilal Respondents no.2 and 3 both residents of Thakur Mohalla, Purana Gaon, Pipal Chouraha, Karond, Barasiya Road, Bhopal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioners by - Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate. Respondents by Shri Manot Chaturvedi, Advocate ORDER ( 24/07/2013) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants no.3 to 5 have challenged the 2 W.P. 8802/2013 validity of the impugned order date...
Manoj Khandelwal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Writ Petition No ::11867. / 2013 Manot Khandelwal versus State of MP and others 24.07.2013. Shri Brajesh Dubey for the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 15.4.2013, passed by the MP State Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior; and, the order-dated 20.11.2012, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal. Petitioner was issued with a permit for operating a Bus on the route Ladkui to Indore. As per the stipulations of the permit, the bus to be used should have seating capacity 50+2. It seems that on the ground that the seating capacity 50+2 means 52+2, counter signature was denied and, therefore, an appeal was filed and in the appeal the order denying counter-signature having been upheld, this writ petition has been filed. Even though in the writ petition, various grounds have been raised by the petitioner to say that the bus presented by the petitioner alongwith the permit was a bus having the proper seating capacity and the interpretation 52+2 g...
Arjun Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
W.P.No.10877/2012 Arjun Singh Baghel vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 24.07.2013 Shri Arjun Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Jain, learned Panel lawyer, for the respondent/State. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the petition the respondent authorities have withdrawn the order of suspension. However, the respondent authorities have not initiated any proceedings against the respondent no.4 though there is a finding against him in the preliminary fact finding enquiry as is evident from pages 35 & 36 of the petition. Looking to the fact that the order of suspension has been withdrawn and the departmental enquiry is proceedings against the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities by filing a representation for taking appropriate action against respondent no.4 in accordance with the enquiry report and in case the petitioner does so alongwith a copy of t...
Bhagwat Singh Tomar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
M.Cr.C.No.7676/2013 24.07.2013 Shri Dinesh Kumar Agrawal and Shri Saket Agrawal, Advocates for the applicant. Heard. Applicant has filed this application against the order dated 10.6.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1176/2012 pending in the Court of 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal rejecting his application under section 311 read with section 391 of Cr.P.C.praying for adducing additional evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant wants to examine himself by way of additional evidence under section 315 of Cr.P.C.He has been convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. His appeal is pending before the Court below. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that after examination of accused opportunity was granted to the applicant to adduce defence evidence. The case was fixed for adducing evidence but despite grant of opportunities no evidence was adduced by applicant. From the above facts, it is apparent that sufficient opportunity...
Arvind Mali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
W.P.No.4929/2013 Arvind Mali vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 24.07.2013 Heard Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that he possesses 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 he has not been called for counselling. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the act of the respondents is illegal as the petitioner is fully qualified and is entitled to be called for counselling. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similar and identical petitions have been disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider the representation and, therefore, similar orders may be passed in this petition also. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner a...
Harsh Vardhan Shesha Vs. Barkatullah University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Writ Petition No ::10280. / 2013 HaRs.Vardhan Shesha versus Barkatullah University and others 24.07.2013. Shri Praveen Chourasiya for the petitioner. Shri Mahendra Pateriya for respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking revaluation of the practical paper in the subject of PSM (Community Medicine) Pre-Final (3rd Year) Examination conducted in the year 2013. By an order passed on 19.6.2013, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit certain amount and thereafter respondent No.2 was directed to undertake revaluation. Now, it is reported by Shri Mahendra Pateriya that revaluation in the subject in question has been done and there is an increase in the marks obtained by the petitioner by 9.5 marks, which has to be rounded of as 10 marks. If that be so, correct marks be not issued to the petitioner. An amended mark-sheet indicating change of marks be issued to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With ...
Smt. Madhumati Joshi Vs. the State of M.P. and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.3741/2001 Smt. Madhumati Joshi Vs State of M.P.and another. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. ORDER (24.7.2013) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the number of orders by which the gradation list was issued to the petitioner, namely, the order dated 12.11.1997, 19.8.1998, 25.9.1999, 9.11.2000 and 20.10.2000, and lastly the order by which the petitioner is called upon to file an appeal against the rejection of her representation. It is contended by the petitioner that she was initially appointed in the year 1979 in the work charged establishment and was subsequently appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 1.6.1985. The petitioner was confirmed on the said post with effect from 1.4.1993 vide order dated 30.4.1993. A Dir...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »