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.
Shubham Gour Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
W.P.No.12163/2013 (Shubham Gour and others versus State of MP and otheRs.31.07.2013 Shri J. Arya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioners in the present petition claiming appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shiksha Grade-I,II, and III on the strength of the fact that they have been working as Guest TeacheRs.the learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing at length submits that the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners as has been done by a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.9134/13 by order dated 03.06.2013. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.keeping the concept of parity in mind, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioners approach the respondents/authorities by filing...
Virendra Chaurasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Cr.A.No.1253/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri M.Shafiqullah, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-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 8/5/12 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.133/10, whereby respondent nos.2 to 4 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.2.10, at about 12.40 a.m., Jitendra Chourasiya (PW1).son of respondent Nos.1 & 2, informed at Police Station Maharajpur that, on the same day at about 9.30 p.m., when his father was away and only mother, sister and himself were available at home, his cousin Rajesh came in an inebriated condition, and after abusing his entire family from outside, went away. At about 10...
Anjani Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Criminal Revision No.1169/2013 31.07.2013 Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State. Heard. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 10.5.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria in Sessions Trial No.76/2010, framing charge against the applicant under Sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. According to prosecution, applicant, who happened to be the Manager of `Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Umaria' (Lead Institution Umaria) obtained the kerosene from Government for supplying the same to the fair price shops for sale to public, but the same was not distributed by him and was misappropriated. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bills were seized by the police during investigation which indicated that the aforesaid kerosene was delivered to fair price shop selleRs.therefore, it cannot prima facie be presumed that applicant ...
M/S Scc Projets Pvt. Limited Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
M/S.SCC Projects PVT.Ltd versus State of M.P.& Ors.W.P. No ::17784. 31. 07.2013. Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. We have taken note of the prayer made in the amendment application vide I.A.No.9774/2013 and after being appraised of the fact that an earlier writ petition was filed in Indore Bench and same is being withdrawn, we propose to deal with the matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of clause 29 of the agreement in question, it is clear that with regard to any dispute arising out of agreement in question, which is a work contract, the provisions of M.P.Madhyastam Adhiniyam are applicable. That being so, if the appellate authority, namely the Engineer-in-Chief does not decide the appeal within 90 days, then remedy available to the petitioner is to invoke jurisdiction available to approach the M.P.Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the M.P.Madhyastam Ad...
Yogendra Singh Vs. the Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
W.P.NO.1570/2012 31.07/2013 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. Having appeared in class 12th examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education in 2000 and being declared ineligible to appear in examination resulting in cancellation of candidature and not declaration of result and being dormant for more than twelve yeaRs.the petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction for respondents to declare the results of class 12th examination 2000 and to provide mark-sheet. The respondents were called upon to respond and file affidavit as to the nature of ineligibility the petitioner incurred which prevented him from the class 12th examination. Responding to the same it is contended that after 12 years they are unable to state the ineligibility which the petitioner incurred because the records are not preserved for twelve yeaRs.Reliance has been placed on various orders passed by t...
Anil Kumar Vs. Kashiram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
M.A.No.3377/2009 31/07/2013. Shri Pramesh Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Yaduvendra Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri N.S.Ruprah, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Heard on IA No.9283/2009, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of more than 8 yeaRs.The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The aforesaid application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground that the appellants engaged to Shri U.C.Thakur, Advocate as his counsel before the learned Tribunal and handed over him the relevant documents including driving licence. Shri U.C.Thakur, Advocate was also the counsel for the Insurance Company and in 12 cases arising out of the same accident, compromise was arrived in Lok Adalat and the counsel for the appellants had also assured the appellants that their claim shall also be settled in the Lok Adalat. However, the matter was not settled in the Lok Adalat and awa...
Vishal Singh Vs. Ramcharan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
M.C.C.No.922/2013 31.07.2013 Mr.S.K.Garg, learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents were not represented as the case has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Heard on I.A.No.8356/2013, an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration is made out. The delay is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.8356/2013 is allowed. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and taking into account the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient cause for restoration of the second appeal is made out. Accordingly, the S.A.No.664/2001 is restored to file subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in the office of the M.P.High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of 10 days. According...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
M.Cr.C.No.14835/2011. 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. This application for grant of leave to file appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 10/08/11 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act.)).in Sessions Trial No.118/2009, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and Section 3(1)(xii) & 3(2)(v) of the Act. As per the prosecution story, on a promise to marry, prosecutrix, a member of Scheduled Tribe, was being persistently subjected to sexual assault by respondent no.1 since December 2005. However, on his denial to marry, report (Ex.P/2) was lodged on 10/12/2008 at Police Station AJK, Hoshangabad. After completion of investigation, charge-she...
Jagendra Singh Parihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Criminal Revision No.1210/2013 31.07.2013 Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the applicant. Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Panel Lawyer for the State. With the consent of both the parties, this revision is finally heard at motion stage itself. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 14.5.2013 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No.169/2010 whereby a mobile seized from the deceased, has been directed to be delivered to Investigating Officer for recording of its call details and the recording done in the said mobile. Applicant is facing trial under section 304-B I.P.C.on the allegation that he committed dowry death of his wife. A mobile was seized from the possession of deceased in which, it is alleged, a software was implanted by her brother Piyush Singh (PW-2) for recording the conversation taking place between deceased and other persons. In compliance of the order dated 2.1.2013 passed by High Court in Criminal Revision No.282/2011, trial Court passed the...
Adarsh Rajabhoj Shikshan Samiti Betul Vs. National Council of Teachers ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
AdaRs.Rajabhoj Shikshan Samiti versus National Council For Teachers Education & Ors.W.P. No ::18411. 31. 07.2013. Shri Pramod Thakre, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner had filed this writ petition challenging the action of the National Council for Teachers Education in the matter of approval being granted to the institute in question. During the couRs.of hearing of the writ petition and on perusal of certain factual assertion made in an application seeking amendment vide I.A.No.10195/2013 it is seen that during pendency of the petition an order has been passed on 21.6.2013 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval have been rejected and thereafter petitioner has preferred an appeal before an appropriate standing appeals committee constituted under Section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act and the appeal is pending before ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »