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.
A.K. Pawar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.11496/2013 (A.K.Pawar versus State of MP and otheRs.19.07.2013 Heard Shri Lalji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 31.12.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his representation against the posting Annexure P/3 is pending before the authority and the same be directed to be considered and decided by the authority concerned. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondents are not processing the petitioner's case. In fact Annexure P/3 itself indicates that the matter has been processed further. It is also clear that the representation is pending before the authority concerned and this court has full faith and belief in the fact that the respondents/authorities shall expeditiously decide the petitioner's case, therefore, I do find any reasons to entertai...
Ram Prashad Gadariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.11506/2013 (R.P.Gadariya versus State of MP and otheRs.19.07.2013 Heard Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that though the petitioner has successfully cleared the selection process for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III taken up pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents on 27.09.2011 wherein the last date for submitting the application forms was 27.10.2011 on which date the petitioner was 44 years and few months but the petitioner is being denied appointment on the ground that he has become more than 45 years of age. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to age relaxation as notified by the State Government by its notifications dated 03.11.2012 and 08.03.2013 Annexures P/3 and P/6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, It is however, observed that the advertisement provides that th...
Heavy Engineering Workshop a Unit of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. th ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.12022 o1. Ms/ Heavy Engineering Workshop vs State of Madhya Pradesh & others 19/07/2013 Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:- (i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and quash the impugned order of assessment contained in Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively. (ii) Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners.2. The case of the petitioner is that till the assessment order passed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner was not possessing 'C' and 'F' Forms, but not the petitioner has received the aforesaid Forms. That the Assessing Officer may be directed to consider the aforesaid 'C' and 'F' Forms and may be directed to re-assess the VAT and CST matters afresh.3. This prayer is vehemently opposed by learned Additional Advocate General appear...
Krishna Kumar Prajapati Vs. Shyamlal Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.11810/2013 19/7/2013: Shri S.H.Mansoori, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 27.4.2013 passed by the 18th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, rejecting an application filed by the applicant for premature release of the compensation which is kept in a fixed deposit account. Record indicates that out of a compensation of Rs.2,00,860/- awarded to the applicant considering the fact that in the year 2004 when the award was passed applicant was a minot boy of 9 years of age a sum of Rs.30,860/- was directed to be paid to him and the remaining amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was directed to be kept in a Fixed Deposit Account. The Fixed Deposit receipt Annexure P/2 shows that the amount is to be matured on 13.1.2014. and an application has been filed by the applicant on the ground that he has attained 18 years and has to buy certain land . The aforesaid prayer has been rejected by th...
Neam Chand Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
1 Cr.A. No.2227/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2227 9. 9 7 APPELLANT : Neem Chand, aged 33 years, S/o Phool Chand Kumhar, R/o Semri Harchand, P.S. and Tehsil- Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT : The State of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Pipariya, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Umesh Trivedi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment reserved on : . .2013 Judgment delivered on :19. 07.2013 (JUDGMENT) Appellant Neem Chand has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31/07 997. passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hosangabad in Session Trial No.143 of 1991 (State of M.P. Through P.S. Pipar...
Puneet Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.11529 / 2013 (Puneet ..Vs..State of MP & otheRs.19-07-2013 Shri Tabrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner's application seeking appointment as Safai Kaamgar in Nagar Palika Parishad, ItaRs.is not being processed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to appointment on account of the fact that his mother had been working as Safai Kaamgar and has thereafter superannuated from the said post and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Rules 8-A and 11-A of the M.P.Municipalities Officers and Servers (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2000, the petitioner is also entitled to be considered. From a perusal of the petition it is clear that the matter is pending before the authority. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petit...
Amit Kumar Hathel Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
1 Amit Kumar Hathel versus Union of India and another.W.P. No.11726/13 (s) 19/07/13 Shri N.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. Challenging the order dated 31/07/12 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No.651/12, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. By the aforesaid order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. Petitioner's father was working in the Ordnance Factory at Katni and he died in harness on 6/11/85. At that point of time, it is seen that petitioner was a minor. He passed his Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination and applied for compassionate appointment after a period of 20 years on 6/06/05. This application has been rejected on 20th February, 2006 and, therefore, after a period of more than 6 years of its rejection, the order rejecting the application was chall...
Harish Mittal Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
R.P.No.889/2012 19.7.2013 The petitioner in person. This review petition has been filed against the order dated 31-10-2012 passed in R.P.No.820/12 by which earlier review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It appeaRs.that it is fourth review petition against the order dated 19-9-2011 passed in W.P.No.2951/2009. Thereafter various review petitions were filed seeking review of the aforesaid order and faced dismissal. Considering the earlier dismissal of the review petitions, we are not inclined to entertain this repeat review petition and dismiss it by imposing cost on the petitioner. The petitioner shall deposit cost of entire litigation before the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Acting Chief Justice Judge ac....
The Dean, Netaji Subhas Chandra Boase Vs. Kapil Singh Rajput
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
1...R.P.No.732 of 2012 Dean, Netaji Subhash Chandra Kapil Singh Rajput & ORS.Bose Medical College, Jabalpur 19.07.2013 Shri Kumresh Pathak, learned Dy. A.G.for the petitioner. Shri Mukesh Mishra, Counsel for respondents. I.A.10626/12 Application for condonation of delay. Considering the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing this review petition is condoned. Heard on merits. This application is filed seeking review of order dated 2.1.2012 passed in W.P.No.21714 of 2011 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant was finally disposed of in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Preeti Dubey versus State of M.P.[W.P.16585 of 2011 dated 18.10.2011. This order has been sought to be reviewed on the ground that the B.P.T.Courses run by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur is on the basis of the fee collected by the College from the students and for this course, no grant is provided by the State. It is submitted that the Coll...
Munnalal Kachhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.11551 / 2013 (Munnalal Kachhi ..Vs..State of MP & otheRs.19-07-2013 Shri S.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akash Chaudhary, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that though the petitioner has successfully qualified in the eligibility examination conducted by the respondent/authorities for making appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III possessing the D.Ed. qualification, the respondent/authorities are not permitting the petitioner to participate in the counselling by stating that the petitioner has obtained less qualifying marks. From a perusal of the petition it is observed that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without approaching the competent authority for mitigation of his grievance. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner approaches th...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »