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.
Dinesh Singh Vs. Narmada Prasad Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.First Appeal No.813/2012 Dinesh Singh. VERSUS Narmada Prasad Sharma and another. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Akhilesh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for the respondents No.1. None for the respondent No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 19th day of July, 2013) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 13.7.2013 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Damoh in Execution case No.35-A/2003.2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, decree holder Narmada Prasad had received a decree of specific performance of contract of sale and thereafter, a sale deed was executed in his favour by the Court on behalf of the judgment debtor Mohan Singh for the land bearing survey No.1448/1, having area 650 sq. feet, situa...
Chhotelal Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
W.P.No.11444/2013 (Chhotelal Verma ..Vs..State of M.P.& othRs.18-07-2013 Shri Shakti Kumar Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 19-6-2013 (Annexure P-1) before the competent authority in accordance with law. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner files such an appeal before the appellate authority alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within fifteen days of obtaining the same, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing all concerned. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner and, therefore, the concerned authority, while deciding the petitioner's appeal, would be at liberty to take into consideration all facts and facets of the case and thereafter take a decision thereon by either accepting o...
Pradeep Singh Prihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
W.P.No.11416/2013 (P.S.Parihar versus State of MP and otheRs.18.07.2013 Heard Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is working as Home Guard Sainik since 2009, has filed this petition alleging that though he has been selected for appointment as police constable in the selection process undertaken by the respondents/authorities, he is being denied appointment only on the ground that he is age barred. It is submitted that denial of appointment to the petitioner is contrary to the clause 1.9 of the Rules framed by the respondents for making recruitment on the post of police constable which provides for two years of age relaxation to a green card holder. It is submitted that the petitioner is a green card holder and is entitled to age relaxation and if the same is given to him, the appointment order in his favour will be issued as even otherwise he has cleared the written and physical test in flying colouRs....
Darshan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
W.P.No.11391/2013 (Darshan Singh & ORS.versus State of MP & Ors.) 18.07.2013 Heard Shri S.K.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. By filing the present petition the petitioneRs.who are working as Guruji, submit that their case be disposed of in the light of and in terms of the order passed by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of MP and otheRs.decided on 15.12.2010 in W.A.No.596/10. The aforesaid order has been quoted in the order passed by this court in W.P.No.5660/13(S) decided on 10.04.2013. Looking to the fact that the directions in the case of Gopal Chawla (supra) appear to be general in nature, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the State Government in terms of and in the light of the order passed in the case of Gopal Chawla (supra) by filing a representation. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioners stands dispo...
Harilal @ Kunj Bihari Vs. Shyambati @ Nanbitti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
Harilal @ Kunj Bihari versus Shyambati @ Nanbitti FiRs.Appeal No ::38. 18. 07.2013. Shri Suyash Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. This appeal was filed in the year 1997 and challenge in this appeal was made to an order dated 3.10.1996 passed by the District Judge, Shahdol in Civil Suit No.12-A/1990, rejecting an application for dissolution of marriage filed by the plaintiff/husband. Records indicated that, parties were married to each other in the year 1970 and after the marriage when the appellant/husband was not looking after to respondent/wife, two applications were filed. One was an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by respondent/wife Smt. Shyamwati and another was an application for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 filed by present appellant. As both the applications were dismissed, challenging the dismissal of the application for dissolution of marriage, this appeal has been filed by the husband. Against the or...
Teerlal Vs. Suman Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
1 W.P. 3978/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.3978 of 2012 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Petitioner : Teerlal S/o Shri Dukaruji Chauhan R/o Village Kinhi, Post Bhurgarh Tahsil-Khairlanji District Balaghat (M.P.) -Versus- RespondentS:1. Suman Bai Wd/o Moolchand Bhagat, R/o Village & Post Ghubadgondi (Anandpur), Tahsil Khairlanji, District Balaghat (M.P.) 2. Sunita, W/o Harishchand Bisen, R/o Village Bhajiyadand, Post- Bhajiyadand, Tahsil Khairlanji, District Balaghat (M.P.) 3. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Collector, Balaghat, District Balaghat, (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by - Shri Devesh Khatri, Advocate. Respondents 1 & 2 by Shri A.D. Mishra, Advocate. Respondent no.3/State by- Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Panel Lawyer ORDER ( 18/07/2013) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the...
Gulab Rao Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1424/2004 Gulab Rao Nagle. Appellant Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent For the appellant : Shri Sanjay Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri B. D .Singh, Government Advocate. ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B. D. RATHI ****** JUDGMENT ( 18 /7/13) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by : B. D. Rathi, J.The sole appellant Gulab Rao has been convicted for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.) for committing the murder of Roshan on 19/3/2003 at 8 p.m. at Bhim Nagar, Bhopal and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine stipulation, while co-accused Lallu alias Vijay Singh, Guddu alias Ajay Singh and Bachhu alias Rajkumar, were acquitted of the offences charged with. The impugned judgment was passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.174/03 on 10/8/2004.2. According to the prosecution case, i...
M/S Telecommunication Consultants India Limited Vs. the State of Madhy ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
W.P.No.12530/2013 18/07/2013 Shri P.K.Bansal with Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. At this stage, Shri Vipin Mishra, learned counsel appears and takes notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Prima-facie, the action taken by the respondents for forfeiting the Bank Guarantee in making recovery in the manner done, cannot be accepted as it is contrary to the law. However, for quashing the impugned action and grant of benefits to the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents is granted two weeks' time to give their say in the matter. In the meanwhile, prima-facie, as action of the respondents is found to be unsustainable, no coercive or further steps for recovery shall be initiated in pursuance to the impugned order. The bank guarantee in question should not be invoked. List the matter on 16th of August, 2013. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) (A.K.Sharma) Judge Judge nd...
State of M.P. and anr Vs. Rajendra Prasad Pandey and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
W.P.No.5343/1998 (State of MP and another versus R.P.Pandey and otheRs.18.07.2013 Shri Akash Choudhary, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri J.L.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. From a perusal of the record it is clear that subsequently, the State by order dated 11.06.98 has regularized and appointed the respondent No.1 as Sub Engineer. It is pertinent to note here that the aforesaid order is a fresh order and has not been passed as a result of any interim order passed by this court and therefore it is clear that the State by applying its mind has passed the order dated 11.06.98 giving due appointment and regularization to the respondent No.1. In the circumstances, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly disposed of as such. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Smt.Usha Rusiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
Writ Petition No.13595/2012 (Smt. Usha Rusiya ....Vs.....State of M.P.& otheRs.18-07-2013 Shri K.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, G.A.for the respondents No.1 to 4. Shri S.D.Mishra, for the respondent No.5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 31-7-2012 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar whereby the order passed by the Collector, Chhatarpur, dated 6-8-2009 giving appointment to the petitioner has been set aside and the appointment of respondent No.5 as Anganwadi Karyakarta in Ward No.1, Chhatarpur has been upheld. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent/authorities issued an advertisement for making appointments of Anganwadi Karyakarta in January/February, 2007 pursuant to which an interim merit list of the selected candidates was prepared for Centre No.1, Ward No.1 wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No.2 while t...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »