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.
Ashok Kumar Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.13797/2013 Ashok Kumar Pathak vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 26.08.2013 Heard Shri S.M.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 26.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Godahi, Janpad Panchayat Sihawal to Gram Panchayat Patulukhi. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also alleges violation of the other clauses of the policy. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority themselves by filing a representation. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the pet...
Sitaram Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.A.No.306/2012 W.A.No.309/2012 26.8.2013 Shri A.P.Shroti and Shri Saurabh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. This order shall govern both the writ appeals as the grievances agitated therein, much or less, are identical. I.A.No.3585/2012 has been preferred in W.A.No.306/2012 (Sitaram Lodhi versus State of M.P.& otheRs.seeking condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. For the reasons stated in the application duly supported by an affidavit, the delay is condoned. The appellants are claiming themselves to be agriculturists of the land situate in Village, Maheba, Tahsil Shah Nagar, District Panna. Their lands have been allegedly acquired by the respondents for construction of Chakra Dam, Westwear, Spill Way, Approach Channel and Canal and they had approached this Court challenging the aforesaid acquisition of their land. The writ court considered the matter at length and dismissed the writ petition...
Rajiv Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8146/2013 M.Cr.C.No.8146/2013 26.8.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Manish Tiwari, counsel for the respondent No.2. The applicants No.1 and 3 as well as the respondent No.2 are present in person. They are duly identified by their counsel. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants gave a draft of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent No.2 before this Court in compliance to the order dated 17.7.2013 passed in F.A.No.238/2013. The facts of the case, in short, are that, on the report lodged by the respondent No.2, a prosecution took place against the applicants for offence punishable under sections 498-A read with section 34, 506 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A compromise application was filed before the trial Court and vide order dated 24.7.2013, the learned JMFC, Jabalpur (Shri Surendra Singh Gurjar) has accepted the compromise application for offence under ...
Kishan Sachdeva Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9177/2013 26.08.2013 Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The facts of the case, in short is that, Ashok kumar, Rajkumar, Rajesh Kumar and Mahesh Kumar son of Shrichandra Manuramani has initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.against one Ramchandra Sachdev and others and a preliminary order has been passed. Thereafter, the respondent Ramchandra moved an application under Section 146 of Cr.P.C.to appoint a receiver. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a complaint to the S.D.M., S.P.Katni and S.H.O.Madhav Nagar, Katni to get the order executed and since nothing has been done therefore, the present petition has been filed. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the present petition is misconceived. The petitioner was the respondent in the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.pending before the S.D.M.Katni and therefore, he could...
Amit Kumar Thakur Vs. Director
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 11373 Of 2009 26.8.2013 Shri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel for respondents. Heard. Having appeared in High School Certificate Examination 2008 conducted by respondent No. 1 M.P. State Open School and being aggrieved of being shown as absent in Mathematics resulting in failure, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to respondents to provide correct/modified marksheet by holding him as present in the mathematics subject. On being noticed, the respondent No. 1 has filed return stating therein that the answerbook of mathematics subject of petitioner was not received by respondent No. 1 with the checklist which was furnished by respondent No. 2, Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Beogarbag. That a further search was conducted at Kamla Nehru School, Bhopal wherein the answerbooks were examined/checked...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kanhaiyalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.651/2012. 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. This application for grant of leave to 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 13/10/11 passed by Sessions Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa, in Sessions Trial No.92/2011, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of respondent and Anitabai (since deceased) was solemnized according to the customs prevalent in their caste. In the wedlock, they were blessed with three children, but respondent used to suspect her chastity and as a result of differences Anitabai was staying separately at Khandwa. On 02/04/2011, when Anitabai had gone to the house of respondent, respondent had inflicted a Phawada (Spade) blow on her head leading to her death ...
Roopal Rawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.A.No.782/2013 (Roopal Rawat and another versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 26.8.2013 Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14-5-2013 passed in W.P.No.18465/2011 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been disposed of thus: It is stated stated by the petitioners that in pursuance to an advertisement (Annexure-P/1) dated 15-6-20089, petitioners challenges appointment in a school and not by the impugned circular certain terms and conditions have been laid down in the manner of running of the school of Excellence. Inter alia, contending that the terms and conditions of services of petitioners in the circular unilaterally changed by the respondents, this petition is filed. Even though, in the body of the petition and in the grounds, it is stated that the terms and conditions of appointment. Are changed, nowhere in the writ petition neither i...
Mohan Lal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
WRIT PETITION No.14521/20126. 08.2013 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. In this writ petition the petitioners inter alia seek a direction to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioners in view of Fundamental Rule 22(D) and to pay arrears of salary to the petitioners upon such re-fixation. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Ramsiya Sharma versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2013(1) MPLJ 51 It is further submitted that the petitioners be granted the liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority and the competent authority be directed to consider and decide the representation in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Ramsiya Sharma (supra)...
Rajesh Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.14350 of 2013 Rajesh Mishra vs State of M.P.& others 26/08/2013 Shri Rajiv Barkur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) That, it is therefore prayed that Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition and issue a writ of Mandamus direction to the respondents to shift the construction site from Geroge D'silva Ward, Gurdwara Gorakhpur to some open area as per Annexure P-8 in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble High Court deem, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be granted in favour of the petitioner..2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.5 & 6 have decided to construct Sulabh Complex in front of Pisanhari Ki Madhiya, Gardha Bus Stand without seeking no objection from inhabitants of the area. It is submitted that as per the policy Annexure P/1, it was necessary to invite objections fro...
B.R. Pandey Vs. Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 WA No.751/13 26.08.2013. Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for appellant. Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for respondents. This appeal is directed against an Order dated 24.07.13 passed in WP No.12692/13 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant was finally disposed of by an order which reads thus :- By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order/notice dated 20.05.13 passed by respondent No.1 Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, BHEL, Bhopal directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter within a period of one week. The only prayer which has been made by the petitioner is that petitioners son is undergoing his studies and, therefore, time be allowed to retain the accommodation provided to him upto 31.12.2013. The prayer is allowed. The petitioner is hereby permitted to retain the quarter upto 31.12.2013 on the basis of penal rent admissible under the law. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disp...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »