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.
Narendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.14234/2013 (Narendra Singh and others versus State of MP and otheRs.26.08.2013 Heard Shri S.R.Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.07.2013 by which the respondents/authorities have informed the petitioners that their services on contract basis as technical assistants for executing work under the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna being implemented in the State by M.P.Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad Panchayat and Rural Development Department have been brought to an end by stating that necessary allotment of funds has not been made at Damoh. It is submitted that while similarly engaged persons are still continuing in Sagar Division and else where, the petitioners have been singled out in this treatment under clause 22 of the appointment order and clause 9.1 of the agreement for contractual appointment which is discriminatory. More...
Durgesh Nandi Idhanaapurti Cooprative Society Ltd. Vs. Principal Secre ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 W.P.No.8980/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.8980 of 2009 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA PETITIONER: Durgesh Nandi Idhanaapurti Cooperative Society Ltd., Jatara, Tehsil Jatara, Distt. Tikamgarh, through its President Smt. Sangeeta Gupta D/o Shri Swami Prasad Gupta, Tehsil Jatara, Distt. Tikamgarh (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS:1. State of M.P.through Principal Secretary, Food & Supply Consumer Protection Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. The Collector Tikamgarh, Distt. Tikamgarh, (M.P.) 3. Distt. Food & Civil Supply Officer, Tikamgarh, Distt. Tikamgarh (M.P.) 4. Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Jatara Tehsil Jatara, Tikamgarh, through its Manager, Ayub Ali S/o Chirag Ali, R/o Jatara, Tikamgarh,.5. Sevak Sahakari Samiti, Ramgarh, through its Manager Shri Veer Singh Ghos R/o Ramgarh, Tehsil, Jatara Distt. Tikamgarh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raj Kishore Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1...W.A.No.437 of 2013 State of M.P.& ORS.Raj Kishore Singh 26.08.2013 Shri P. Dharmadhikari, G.A.for the appellants. Shri Sankalp Kochar, Counsel for the respondents. I.A.No.6675/2013 for condonation of delay. Notice of this application is accepted by Shri Kochar who prays for short time to file reply of the application. Prayer is allowed. I.A.6676/2013 for stay. Notice of this application is also accepted by Shri Kochar who prays for short time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the matter has been decided by the writ Court on the basis of the judgment dated 11.5.2006 passed by the Single Bench in W.P.No.9749 of 2003 in Ku. Seema Mishra versus State of M.P.but factual position in the present case is slightly different. The services of the respondent were terminated which was subject matter of O.A.No.73 of 1996 filed before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal and by a common order dated 27.3.2000 the applications were dismissed. The ma...
Smt. Mukteshwari Vs. Aambai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 W.P. No.2118/2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA Writ Petition No.2118 / 2011 PETITIONER : Smt. Mukteshwari, W/o. Shri Nutanlal Nijliwar, R/o. Village Bichhiya, Tehsil and District Mandla (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: Aambai, W/o. Nokhelal Raghuvwanshi R/o. Village Bichhiya, Tehsil and District Mandla (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by Shri Shailendra Verma, Advocate. Respondent by Shri R.D. Hundikar, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (26.08.2013) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 11.01.2011 passed by II Civil Judge, Class-1, Mandla in Civil Suit No.41-A/2010 whereby application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and another application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC are rejected.2...
Madan Mohan Namdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.14363/2013 Madan Mohan Namdeo & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 26.08.2013 Heard Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the advertisement, Annexure P-1, alleging that they were engaged by an outside agency for doing the work of Data Entry Operator in various departments in the State and that they have been doing this work since several years but not the respondent authorities propose to initiate proceedings for engaging Data Entry Operators on contract basis ignoring the claim of the petitioners for appointment on the said post. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court had disposed of a similar petition W.P No.13146/2013, and, therefore, the present petition be also disposed of in similar terMs.This Court in W.P No.13146/2013 has passed the following orders:- The petitioners have filed this petition alleging that they were engage...
Narayan Singh Gond Vs. Amritlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Cr.A.No.1399/2011 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J None for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.6-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 31/3/11 passed by Sessions Judge, Umaria, in Sessions Trial No.97/09, whereby respondent Nos.1 to 5 namely Amritlal, Sitaram Singh, Ramadhar Singh, Vijay Singh Gond and Pushpendra Singh Gond have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the occasion of Dusshera, after the idol of Goddess Durga was consigned to water, respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with co-accused Suresh Singh Gond, Omprakash Gond, Gangaram and many otheRs.assembled near the tent installed for worshipping the Goddess, and started abusing the Villagers and also assaulted Ramvishal Singh and Viranj...
Smt. Darshi Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.16266/2012 (Smt. Darshi Sharma versus State of MP and others 26.08.2013 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been rendered infructuous in view of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the return of the respondents/State. In view of statement made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the return of the State, the present petition is disposed of as having become infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to take up fresh proceedings, in case cause of action survives or arises. The petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as infructuous with the aforesaid liberty. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Durgesh Nandi Idhanaapurti Cooperative Society Ltd. Jatara Vs. Princip ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 W.P.No.1225/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.1225of 2010 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA Petitioner : Durgeshnandani Edhan Apoorti Cooperative Society Ltd., Jatara, District Tikamgarh through its President Smt. Sangeeta Gupta, D/o Shri Swami Prasad Gupta, Tahsil Jatara, District Tikamgarh, M.P.-Versus- Respondents :1. State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Principal Secretary, Food and Supply Consumer Protection Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal.2. The Collector, Tikamgarh, District Tikamgarh, M.P.3. District Food & Civil Supply Officer, Tikamgarh, District Tikamgarh, M.P.4. Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.,Jatara, Tikamgarh, through its Manager Ayub Ali, S/o Chirag Ali, R/o Jatara, Tikamgarh. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by - Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. Respondents no.1 to 3 - Shri Sudesh Verma, Govt. Advocate Respondent No.4 - Shri R.K....
immu @ Prabhat @ Imran Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9350/2012 26.08.2013 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.has been filed by the applicant for quashment of the charge sheet filed on the basis of the FIR registered vide Crime No.123/2011 at Police Station Kundipura District Chhindwara for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 25.4.2011 the complainant Paran Sharma had lodged an FIR to the effect that his truck was stolen. The truck was recovered from one Shiv Kumar. The accused Shiv Kumar had stated in his memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that the applicant sent Shahabuddin with a sum of Rs.700/- that Shiv Kumar had to take the truck standing at a Dhaba, Pindarai and thereafter he had to contact with the applicant. The accused Shiv Kumar also gave the mobile number which was provided to him by Shahabuddin, a...
Pralhad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
WRIT PETITION No.14524/20126. 08.2013 Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of M.P.And others [2012 (2) MPLJ 605 ., wherein only this much was directed that the respondents are directed to examine the requirement of refixation of honorarium in the present days of price hike. It is contended that a writ petition was earlier filed by the said person which was decided and subsequently the order passed in the said writ petition was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as also in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, though the writ petition filed by Gopal Chawla and others (supra) subsequently was...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »