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.
Raun Kumar Mandre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Writ Petition No ::4677. / 2013 Raun Kumar Mandre versus State of MP and others 22.07.2013. Shri S.K.Soni for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for State. Shri K.K.Singh for respondent No.2. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. Petitioner was a student who was granted admission to the B.Ed CouRs.in the Academic Session 2007-08, and contending that the result of the petitioner is not being declared by the University, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that this is one of the case where the recognition and affiliation granted to the Institute in question i.e Vikramaditya B.Ed College, Jabalpur, was cancelled; recognition was never granted to the Institute in question; and, the Institute without even grant of recognition admitted the students. The matter came to this Court and thereafter travelled to the Supreme Court in a SLP filed. The Supreme Court, in the SLP filed by most of the colleg...
Jyoti G Vaidya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.NO.6616/2012 22.7.2013 Shri S.K.Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a mandamus to the effect that answer scripts of subjects Class X Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh Examination 2011 conducted by the respondents be summoned and the copy be revalued from an independent valuer. The case of the petitioner is that she appeared in High School Certificate Examination Class X conducted by Board of Secondary Education 2011 and had obtained 552 marks out of 600. That though she secured distinction in all papers and passed in FiRs.Division but had expected obtaining more marks while the petitioner has been awarded less marks. Since the petitioner has scored less marks, the petitioner applied for revaluation but of no avail. It is urged that answer scripts of the petitioner has not been properly valued and therefor...
Golu Adiwasi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
1 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.497 of 2007 APPELLANT : Golu Adiwasi S/o Shri Munnalal Adiwasi Aged about 19 years, R/o Khurai, P.S. Motinagar, District Sagar (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Arun Choubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment reserved on :20. 06.2013 Judgment delivered on :22. 07.2013 (JUDGMENT) By means of filing the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Golu Adiwasi has assailed the order of conviction dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tahsil Khurai, District Sagar in Session Trial No.141 of 2006 (State of M.P. through P...
Halke Bhaiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Cr.A.No.843/2011 As per B.D.Rathi,J 22.7.13 Shri Sharad Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-State. Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 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 13/1/11 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No.211/2009, whereby respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25/1/09, at about 9 p.m., Hakam Singh had gone to irrigate his field located at Bahravan. When he did not return in the night, he was searched for in the morning. During search, blood stains were found near the Well situated at his field, and when Ramgovind looked into the Well, he saw that dead body ...
Dr. Rachana Shukla Vs. Ajay Tirkey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Con.C.No.1375/2013 22/07/2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri R.S.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Vandana Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents wants two weeks' time to seek instructions and file reply. Prayer allowed. In the meanwhile, taking note of the order passed in the writ petition on 8.1.2013, wherein the respondents have clearly admitted that they can accommodate the petitioner in M.S.Gynecology for the next year i.e.2013-14, the respondents are required to keep one seat vacant in the subject to M.S.Gynecology for the academic session from 2013-14 to accommodate the petitioner in view of the order already passed on 8.1.2013 in W.P.No.5321/2010. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that if the counselling for filling up of the post of M.S.Gynecology available at Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur is conducted, one seat shall be kept vacant and shall not be filled up without leave of this Court. List the matter on 5...
Rajesh Kumar Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.No.11681/2013 Rajesh Kumar Khare vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 22.07.2013 Heard Shri S.K.Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 27.5.2013 by which the petitioner has been transferred as Office Assistant Grade-3 from Block Basari to Maharajpur in Khajuraho Division. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been posted at Basari on his own request by order dated 7.2.2011 but before the lapse of 3 years he is again being transferred. It is submitted that the petitioner has an old and ailing mother of 75 years and, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to remain at Basari to look after her. It is further submitted that the petitioner's representation against the impugned order of transfer has also not been considered by the concerned authority. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed ...
Shashi Shekhar Budholiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.No.11701/2013 Shashi Shekhar Budholiya vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 22.07.2013 Heard Shri Rohit Sohagaure, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 29.6.2013 by which the earlier order of posting of the petitioner dated 27.4.2013 has been modified and the petitioner's place of posting has been changed from Government Nursery, Sehura, District Rewa to the office of Assistant Director, Horticulture, Tikamgarh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had also executed the previous order dated 27.4.2013 which is being modified within two months which indicates total non-application of mind inasmuch as the petitioner has already got his children admitted and is settled at Sehura but is being uprooted within two months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a representation before the respondent au...
Smt. Abha Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
(1) Writ Appeal No.1243/2012 22.07.2013 Smt.Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rahul Diwakar, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for respondents no.3 and 4. Shri Diwakar prays a days time as his senior is not available today. Prayer is opposed by Smt.Menot on the ground that on 17.7.2013 a review DPC has been convened treating the year 2007 as zero year while a finding has been recorded on the basis of report submitted by the police that respondent no.1 had manipulated the confidential report of the year 2007 and in the light of the aforesaid factual position, neither 2007 could have been treated as zero year not respondent no.1 could have been considered for the post of Joint Director, Public Instructions, on the basis of ACR of 2006. The aforesaid aspect will be considered on the next date of hearing. Be listed for hearing on 24.7.2013, as prayed by the parties. Shri Pathak, learned D...
Anil Sethi Vs. Canara Bank Areara Colony Branch
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Anil Sethi versus Canara Bank and others.W.P. No.12600/13 22/07/13 Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel and Shri Amitabh Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the inter-locutory orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur on 8/04/13 in O.A.No.152/12 and the partial interference only made by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 1/07/13, this petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Respondent No.1 Bank has filed the suit for recovery and the proceedings for recovery of ` 5,32,60,186.62/- was filed against the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 5. In the recovery proceedings filed, petitioner is arrayed as a defendant and he is held responsible as he is a guarantor and mortgagor and his liability is found to be co-existing in identical terms with the liability of the main borrower. The proceedings were pending and it was found that since 12/06/12, petitioner was deliberately seeking time to file the written statement an...
Abdul Hameed Ansari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.No.12091/2013 (A.H.Ansari versus State of MP and otheRs.22.07.2013 Heard Shri P.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by contractual appointments made by the respondents/authorities on 28.06.2013. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointments have been made without following the procedure prescribed by law or without considering the case of the petitioner who is more meritorious than the candidates who have been appointed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that the petitioner has already approached the Collector, Sidhi by filing representations dated 18.05.2013 and 25.06.2013 which are pending decision. In the circumstances, as the petitioner has already approached the competent authority who is looking into matter, I find no reason to entertain the parallel proceedings by way of the present petition. Accor...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »