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.
Natthu Alias Dhanraj Dhoke Vs. Indu Dhoke
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
Cr.R.No.849/2013 17.7.2013 Shri Alok Nayak, counsel for the applicants. Heard on IA.No.13860/2013, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present criminal revision. The present revision is filed against the interim maintenance order dated 18.10.2011. A revision is filed with delay of at least one year and 103 days. No good reason has been shown by the applicant for condonation of that delay. The ground is taken that during the pendency of the maintenance application the applicant has retired and his salary is reduced. not he is getting a pension of Rs.5,724/- and therefore, he challenges the interim maintenance order. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant does not fall within a proper ground for condonation of delay. If the salary of the applicant is reduced due to his retirement and not he is getting a pension then he has to raise such objection in the written statement and he should have got the interim maintenance order revised by the same Cour...
Shankar Sodhi Vs. Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11206/2009 17/07/2013 Shri Vivekanand Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Considering the fact that this writ petition is pending since, 2009 and the dispute involved in this writ petition pertains to the examination conducted for the academic year 2008-09 and for more than three yeaRs.respondents have not filed any reply, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, Respondent No.2 the Registrar, Rajeev Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to his appearing in the examination and permission to keep the term and decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of four weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The representation shall be decided by a speaking order indicating statutory provision, as may be applicable. ...
Prem Narayan Gurjar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11386/2013 (Prem Narayan Gurjar & 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...
CaptaIn Ramesh Chandra Nema Shiksha Prachar, Prasar Avam Samaj Kalyan ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11424/2013 18/07/2013 Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. The case in hand has a chattered history and this is the third round of litigation with regard to grant of permission/ approval for conducting couRs.of study in B.Ed/ D.Ed. Be it as it may be, the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval for the year 2013-14 has been concluded by this Court in the light of certain orders passed in the previous writ petitions and not the question is with regard to grant of permission/ approval for the year 2014-15. According to the petitioner, all the inspections and formalities are over, the respondent/ National Council for Teachers Education is not refusing to grant permission to the petitioner/ Institute mainly on the ground as are contemplated by them in Annexure-R2/1. The reason given in the said letter goes to show that the recognition for the...
Ambika Prasad Tripathi Vs. R.N. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
Conc. No. 1422 Of 2013 17.7.2013 Shri Sumit Kanojiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner alleges willful disobedience of order in W.P. No. 18229/2012 and seeks action against the respondent. Petitioner an employee of Jila Sahkari Krishi Avam Gramin Bank Maryadit Sidhi was terminated from service on 14.7.2007. This order he challenged before Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who by his order dated 26.8.2009 set aside the termination and directed for restoration of service with backwages. This order was further affirmed by M.P. Cooperative Tribunal by its order dt. 22.7.2011. That, against the order by the Tribunal, the employer has preferred a writ petition which is pending before the High Court. During pendency whereof petitioner filed another petition W.P. No. 18229/2012, whereby, petitioner sought direction to resp...
Santosh Dhurve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
Writ Petition No.11282/2013 (Santosh Dhurve....Vs.....State of M.P.& otheRs.17-07-2013 Heard Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming compassionate appointment in lieu of the petitioner's father, who died while in service as a contingency paid Chowkidar on 25-1-2010. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that initially the petitioner's father was engaged temporarily by order dated 11-4-1989 but subsequently by order dated 3-11-1992 his services were regularized in regular establishment and therefore the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment could not have been rejected by the authorities on the ground that the petitioner's father was a contingency paid employee. It is submitted that in the circumstances the respondent/authorities be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Having heard the learned counsel...
Rajkumar Mehra Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 Cr.A. No.2054/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2054 9. 9 6 APPELLANT : Raj Kumar S/o Darshan Mehra Aged - 21 years, R/o Village Dhanagadha P.S. Kewalari, District Seoni (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT : The State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment reserved on : . .2013 Judgment delivered on :17. 07.2013 (JUDGMENT) Appellant Raj Kumar has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.11.1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No.53/1996 (State of M.P. through P.S. Kewalari, District Seoni vs Raj Kumar), whereby, the appellant convicted under Section 436 of ...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs. Smt. Mala Pal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
R.P.NO.533/2013 17-07-2013 Shri Dinesh Koshal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Naresh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.1. This application has been filed for review/recall of the order dated 14-05-2013, passed by a Bench of this court in M.A.No.415/06. It is pointed out by Shri Dinesh Koshal, learned counsel for the applicant/ Insurance Company that in an appeal field by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident instead of deciding the appeal on merit and considering the question of liability of the owner an award for enhancement of compensation has been passed even though the respondent/claimant has not challenged the award and no appeal was filed seeking enhancement. On going through the original record of M.A.No.415/06 it is seen that due to accident that took place, respondent no.2 Samlu alias Shyamlal filed an application for compensation. In the said application for compensation filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , which was registered as Cla...
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs. Rajendra Kumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.A.No.398 o17. 07/2013 Shri Ajit K. Sinha and MRS.Indira Nair, Senior Advocates with Shri Rajas Pohankar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri K.K.Pandey, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 7. Shri Kumresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.8/State. This appeal is admitted for final hearing. Notices on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 7 is accepted by Shri K.K.Pandey, Advocate and on behalf of respondent No.8/State by Shri Kumresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. The respondent No.9 appears to be a proforma respondent, so it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.9, at this juncture. On being asked specifically from the counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 whether any relief was prayed before the writ Court against respondent No.9, it is submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 7 had claimed parity viz-a-viz respondent No.9, but no relief was claimed against respondent No.9. In this view of the matter, no notice is necessary to respondent No.9 at this juncture. Be...
Ram Sakhi Vs. Smt. Shashi Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.A.No.442/2013 17.07.2013 Shri S.S.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.4.2013 in Writ Petition No.5809/2013 by which the learned Single Judge has issued ad-interim writ in the matter. It appears that the aforesaid order has been passed after considering the rival contentions of the parties and not the main case has to be decided in the writ Court. At this stage, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order and dispose of this matter with a request to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter expeditiously. The appellant herein may also move an application for early hearing of the writ petition. With the aforesaid, this appeal is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge snb/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »