Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Mathura Pd. and ors. Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
M.P. No.3980 of 1993 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.3980 of 1993 PETITIONERS:1. Mathura Prasad (since deceased) Through LRs. (a) Smt. Kamla Bai Wd/o Mathura Prasad aged about 53 years. (b) Smt. Kamal Kishori W/o B.K.Gautam, Aged 34 years, Resident of Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Hata Distt. Damoh M.P. (c) Smt. Sunita Baai W/o Ambika Prasad aged 28 years, R/o Village Kharpura Post Madiyadav Tah. Hata Distt. Damoh M.P. (d) Mithilesh Prasad S/o Late Shri Mathura Prasad aged 23 years. (e) Vinot Kumar S/o Late Shri Mathura Prasad aged 21 years. (f) Vinot Kumar S/o Late Shri Mathura Prasad aged 15 years Minot through Mother Natural guardian Smt. Kamla Bai All R/o. Padri Dube Post Bhaliya Tah. Hata Distt. Damoh M.P.2. Smt. Ghagwati Bai aged about 42 years, W/o Harishankar R/o Village Uttakheda Tah. Gadhakota Distt. Sagar M.P.3. Kamta Prasad aged 50 years, S/o Raghunandan Piyashi 4. Purshottam aged 42 years, S/o R...
Dinesh Kumar Sahu Vs. Principal Secretary, Medical Education Dept.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
W.P.No.13732/2013 Dinesh Kumar Sahu vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 27.08.2013 Heard Shri P.S.Tomar learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 4-7-2013 passed by the respondent No.4, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4781/2013, dated 16-4-2013, by which the claim of the petitioner for regularization had been directed to be considered and decided by the respondent/authorities. By the impugned order the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been performing the work of Photocopy Operator in the respondent No.4/College and in such circumstances he is entitled for regularization of his services since 30-10-1999 as has been done by the respondents in similarly situated cases of other persons. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner ...
R.N.Tandon Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1045/2000 R.N.Tandon VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.K.P.Verma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vikram Singh, Standing counsel for the Union of India representing CBI. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 27th day of August 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 468 and 420 of IPC vide judgment dated 3.5.2000 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Jabalpur in criminal case No.12/1994 and sentenced for 1 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- for each count. In default of payment of fine, 3 months simple imprisonment was also directed. In criminal appeal No.69/2000 vide judgment dated 25.7.2000 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, the appe...
Brij Bhushan Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
1 Brij Bhushan Choudhary versus State of M.P.and others.R.P. No.16/09 27/08/13 None for the applicant. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned Additional Adv.General for the State. This application has been filed by the applicant seeking review/recall of an order dated 2/12/08 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.17232/03 which was decided vide order dated 2/12/08. It was found by this Court that petitioner was on deputation on the post of 'Project Officer' and by the order impugned in the writ petition which was filed as Annexure P-7 dated 1/03/01, he was directed to work on his substantive post of Upper Division Teacher. It was the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that he has been reverted to the post of Upper Division Teacher which is illegal. The Writ Court found that petitioner was on deputation as a 'Project Officer' and if the deputation is curtailed and he has been sent back to the substantive post of Upper Division Teacher, there is no error committed and based on the aforesaid cons...
Smt. Jaya Singh Baghel Vs. Ghanshyam Singh Parihar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
MCC No.734/2013 27.08.2013 Shri R.K.Sen, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent, although served and represented through duly engaged counsel. In compliance of the order dated 7.8.2013 this matter is listed today for admission as well as for final disposal. Heard. On behalf of the applicant, the wife of the respondent this petition is preferred under under Section 24 of the CPC for appropriate direction to transfer the Hindu Marriage Case No.44-A/2013 filed by the respondent against her under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights in the court of District Judge, Damoh, from such court to some competent court at Jabalpur. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the applicant got married with the respondent at Kajarwara, Jabalpur on 27.6.2010. Subsequently out of such wedlock, they have been blessed with a girl child. It is also stated that subsequent to marriage, the applicant was subjected to cruelty and harassme...
Danish Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
1 Criminal Revision No.1780/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1780/2011 Danish Choudhary VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the applicant. Shri R. N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. ORDER (Passed on the 27th day of August, 2013) The applicant has moved an application of revision against the orders dated 12.8.2011 and 9.9.2011 whereby the applications of the applicant and complainant Babar under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C for re-examination of the complainant were dismissed and application under Section 320(1) of the Cr.P.C was also dismissed.2. The facts of the case in short are that on 24.10.2009 the complainant Babar informed the Police at the hospital that the accused Danish Choudhary assaulted him by a sword. The Investigation Officer registered a criminal case f...
Anand Ram Bharwe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Writ Petition No.11842/2013 (Anand Ram Bharwe ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.26-08-2013 Heard Shri A. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 15-7-2013 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Lakhnadaun to Gunnaur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that previously by order dated 20-5-2013 the respondent No.3 was transferred from Lakhnadaun to Nainpur and in his place the petitioner was posted as SDO (Police).The respondent No.3 being aggrieved had filed a Writ Petition No.9811/2013 before this Court which was disposed of on 3-6-2013 with liberty to the respondent No.3 to file a representation which was directed to be considered and decided within ten days after hearing the respondent No.3 and passing a reasoned order. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W...
Prashant Bajpai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
WRIT PETITION No.14485/20126. 08.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working in the establishment of respondent No.4 which is said to be State Aided Institute. The State Government has introduced a policy for grant of higher pay scale (Kramonnati) to such employees who have stagnated in one post or one pay scale for a period of 12 or 24 yeaRs.According to the petitioner, the circular has been issued in this respect on 03.03.1986 which has been reiterated on 13.03.1999. It is further contended that this court has disposed of similar claim made by one Anjani Prasad Mishra, who has field W.P.No.843/2011(s).vide order dated 21.01.2011, with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in that case in terms of the circulars of the State Government and to pass the necessary ordeRs.The order passed in the case of Anj...
Lakhankant Tiwari Vs. Radha Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9158/2013 26.08.2013 Shri N.K.Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the proceedings pending before the trial Court in which the respondents have started the recovery proceedings. Facts of the case in short is that, vide order dated 12.7.2002, a maintenance order was granted in favour of the respondents. Thereafter, an execution proceeding of compromise took place between the parties in the Lok- Adalat and vide order dated 20.3.2005, the compromise application was accepted and execution proceeding was closed. Thereafter, again the respondents have started the execution of original maintenance order. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is apparent that a compromise took place between the parties during the execution of proceeding and the recovery and maintenance order related to the execution proceeding was closed but the original maintenance order was neither quashed not modified. Under s...
Chander Singh Kumre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8605/2013 26.08.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. By the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.applicant has challenged the order dated 18.5.2013 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal whereby the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.by the applicant was dismissed. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the applicant took a plea that he was busy due to marriage in his family, and therefore he could not give the appropriate instructions to his Advocate, and therefore the witnesses may be recalled. However, if the statements of the witnesses specifically the prosecutrix (PW-3) are perused, then it would be apparent that the applicant was present in the Court at the time of his examination, and there...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »