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.
Hari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
M.Cr.C.No.6660/2013 M.Cr.C.No.6660/2013 17.7.2013 Shri Anoop Saxena, counsel for the applicants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.1. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicants have moved an application for extension of time given by order dated 13.12.2011 passed in criminal appeal No.585/1999. Vide that order the single Bench of this Court has directed that enhanced fine be deposited within a period of 3 months and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of 2 months was also directed. However, the order was passed in the year 2011 and the applicants did not take care to deposit the fine amount in last two yeaRs.Under such circumstances, no enhanced time can be granted. However, attention of the trial Court is invited to the provisions of section 68 of IPC that after arrest of the applicants, if they deposit the fine amount then, their default sentence may be terminated. Consequently, the present petit...
Pushpendra Kumar Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11390/2013 Pushpendra Kumar Ahirwar vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 17.07.2013 Heard Shri Dinesh Upadhyay learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by his non-selection in the selection process undertaken by the respondent authorities pursuant to advertisement dated 6.9.2012 issued by the respondent no.4 for making appointment on the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor/Senior T.B.Lab Supervisor. It is submitted that though the petitioner is eligible and more meritorious his name has not been included in the selection list/merit list prepared by the respondents while other less meritorious candidates have been appointed as is evident from Annexure P-6. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has already taken up this issue before the Collector, Tikamgarh as well as the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Tikamgarh which is pending decision. Shri S.M.Lal, the learned Govt. Advocate, app...
Smt. Sushma Uikey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 W.A.No.654/2013 17.7.2013 Shri Shyam Yadav, Counsel for appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for respondent/State. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the respondent No.8 had filed a writ petition before this Court by concealing a material fact that her election was declared null and void by the Election Tribunal and she was not entitled to continue with the post of Sarpanch. It is also submitted that after issuance of the order passed by the writ Court, the Collector, Mandla has issued an order directing the authorities to hand over the charge of Sarpanch to respondent No.8. From the perusal of the record, we find that W.P.No.9914/2013 was disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The appellant has not filed any documentary evidence in support of aforesaid contention. In view of aforesaid, we allow an opportunity to the appellant to produce the material and to file a specific affidavit that the order passed by the Election Tribunal is not the subject-matter of any ap...
Mahendra Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.12164 / 2013 (Mahendra Kumar Gupta..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.17-07-2013 Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akash Chaudhary, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner, who is working as Tahsildar, Tahsil Bina, District Sagar, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 4-7-2013 (Annexure P-1) by which he has been transferred to Garhakota. It is alleged by the petitioner that he has been subjected to frequent transfer to accommodate the respondent No.4 and by the impugned order he has been transferred within a very short period of 6-1/2 months. After a perusal of the record it is observed that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without filing any representation against the impugned order before the respondent/authorities 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 pet...
Roopshah Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 W.P.No.111325/2013 Roopshah Yadav & ORS.versus State of M.P.17.07.2013 Shri Paritosh Trivedi learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. After having argued at length, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to look into the representation and take a decision thereon expeditiously. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State submits that the matter shall be looked into and shall be decided in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the matter before the concerned authority. It goes without saying that in case the petitioners approach the respondent authorities alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall decide the ...
Krishna Kumar Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.18602/2006. 17.7.2013. Shri H.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4 and 7. Shri P. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.5 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6. The matter though is posted for filing of counter- affidavit by respondent in furtherance to Annexure P/14 said to be a patta granted in favour of the petitioner; however, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the nature of relief sought by the petitioner has already been nagatived in Civil Suit No.83- A/2000 dismissed by judgment and decree dated 8.3.2002 passed by FiRs.Civil Judge Class II, Sihora Distt. Jabalpur. The suit was filed on 27.11.2000 for the following reliefs oknh ds i{k esa [kljk ua-&364@7 jdok 0-004 gs- ds laca/k esa nqdku fuekZ.k ,oa ukeka=.k izdj.k tks fnukad 16-11-1995 ls fopkjk/khu gS].dh Lohfr iznku djus gSr.esUMsVjh Mk;jsDku dh fMh iznku dh tk;sa A Following issue was framed ::2. :: W.P....
Sandhya Rahangdale Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11381/2013 Sandhya Rahangdale vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 17.07.2013 Heard Shri Paritosh Trivedi 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 the petitioner has been denied appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III by stating that the person who has appeared in the examination is the petitioner whose name is Sandhya Rahangdale whereas the certificates are that of Indirakala Sharnagat. The petitioner submits that the petitioner's maiden name is Indirakala Sharnagat however after marriage her name has been changed to Sandhya Rahangdale but the authorities, without taking the aforesaid aspect into consideration, are not giving her joining. The petitioner has filed various documents in support of her statement. However, after having perused the petition it does not appear that all the aforesaid aspects were ever placed before the authorities or that the au...
Abdul Haneef Ansari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11306/2013 (Abdul Haneef Ansari & ORS.versus State of MP & Ors.) 17.07.2013 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 petitioner 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 petitioner stands d...
Awadh Narayan Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11846/2013 Awadh Narayan Saxena vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 17-07-2013 Heard Shri S.K.Dubey, 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 passed by the respondent No.2, Commissioner-cum-Director, Horticulture and Farm Forestry, M.P., Bhopal, by which the respondent No.4 has been promoted and posted at Government Nursery, Badabaag, District Chhatarpur where the petitioner has been presently working since 27-4-2013. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has already approached the authorities by filing a representation (Annexure P-5) on 1-7-2013 for mitigation of his grievance. In the circumstances, as the petitioner had already approached the competent authority by filing a representation, without entering into the merits of the case or making any comments on the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a dire...
M/S Arun Construction Company Ltd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.10879/2013 17/07/2013 Shri Akhil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/ State. On instructions received from the competent authority, it is pointed out by Shri Sanjay Dwivedi that except for few minutes or period on 3.6.2013, the server was already available on various periods and he refused the contention advanced by the petitioner. In view of the above, respondents are directed to file counter affidavit of the competent authority in this regard. List the matter awaiting response from the respondents by counter affidavit on 25th of July, 2013. (Rajendra Menon) (A.K.Sharma) Judge Judge nd...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »