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.
Choudhary Singh Vs. Dhannu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Second Appeal No.1225/2011 26.08.2013 Mr. Manot Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission.2. This appeal is by the plaintiff, who has lost in both the Courts.3. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that the suit land was gifted to his father Samlu by his grand-mother namely Pankinbai vide registered gift-deed dated 13.6.1973 (Ex. P/1). Since then plaintiff's father was in possession of the suit land and after death of father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. However, the defendants in November, 2006 threatened the plaintiff with dispossession. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction.4. The defendants in the written statement inter- alia pleaded that one Tiharo was owner of the suit land and after his death, the land in question devolved on his wife namely Pankinbai. It was further...
Ramesh Kumar Pandey Vs. National Council for Teacher Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Writ Petition No ::5694. / 2013 Ramesh Kumar Pandey versus NCTE and others 26.08.2013. Shri Rajkumar Tripathi for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for State. Shri K.K.Singh for respondent No.1. Shri V.P.Tiwari for respondent No.5. Shri D.N.Shukla for respondent No.6. Petitioner was a student who was granted admission to the B.Ed CouRs.in the Academic Session 2007-08, and contending that the result of the petitioner is not being declared by the University, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that this is one of the case where the recognition and affiliation granted to the Institute in question i.e Rajendra Katare Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Shahdol, was cancelled; recognition was never granted to the Institute in question; and, the Institute without even grant of recognition admitted the students. The matter came to this Court and thereafter travelled to the Supreme Court in a SLP filed. The Supreme Court, in the SLP filed by mo...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Anil Kumar Nema
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
R.P.No.74/2013 26.8.2013 Mr.R.P.Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. This application has been filed for review of order dated 25.7.2012 passed in W.P.No.9850/2012 (S) by which the petitioners herein were directed to revise the pay scale of the respondents herein by taking into account the fiRs.upgradation granted to them vide order dated 25.9.1984 w.e.f.01.4.1981 and also after considering the cases of respondents herein for Second Time Bound Upgradation under the Time Bound Upgradation Scheme dated 13.7.1999 and 19.4.1999, the petitioners herein shall fix the salary of the respondents notionally and shall thereafter pay pension, gratuity and other terminal dues to the respondents herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order was passed in view of order dated 15.9.2009 passed in W.P.No.824/2004(S).In a similar matter against the order passed by a Division Bench, a Special Leave P...
Radhe Shyam Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Cr.A.No.2754/2011 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J None for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-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 05/08/10 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Sessions Trial No.28/2009, whereby respondent Nos.2 to 4 have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) but convicted under sections 324/34 and 323/34 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. Prosecution case, in brief, is that owing to a dispute pertaining to agricultural land, on 25/10/08, respondents Gaya Singh, Ramkishore Patel and Rajendra Singh Patel, respectively armed with Gainti and Dandas, surrounded the complainant Radheshyam Gupta, his nephew Kailash Gupta and his brother Rajednra Gupta and while Gaya Singh gave a Gainti blow on the head of Radheshyam,...
Santosh Bhondekar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
WRIT PETITION No.14222/20126. 08.2013 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Moh...
Jagdamba Prasad Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
WRIT PETITION No.14504/20126. 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 parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions me...
Mahendra Singh Vs. Rajkumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Cr.A.No.1857/2011 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Abhinav Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.5-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 19/04/2010 passed by III Additional Judge (FTC) to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen at Begumganj in Sessions Trial No.14/2007, whereby respondent nos.1 to 4 viz. Rakumar, Babbu alias Babulal Harijan, Malthu and Omprakash alias Ramprasad Harijan have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05/10/2006 appellant Mahendra Singh lodged a report that when his father Narayan Singh was working at the fields, then accused persons namely Rajkumar, Malthu Baretha, Babbu Harijan and Omprakash assaulted Narayan Singh with Gupti, Danda and Axe. Wh...
Arsdul Kadri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 20215 Of 2011 26.8.2013 Shri H.S. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. None for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner, a student of Master of Social Work from Government Thakur Ranmat Singh Autonomous College, Rewa enrolled with Awadhesh Pratap Singh, University, Rewa vide this petition seeks direction to respondents to give him chance to appear in 3rd semester examination of Master of Social Work and to allow the petitioner to complete his master's degree. It is the contention of the petitioner that after taking admission in Master of Social Work in the year 2010 the petitioner passed his 1st semester examination and was given admission in 2nd semester . It is urged that examination of 2nd semester was held in 2011 and as per the statement of marks of examination the petitioner was promoted to n...
Santosh Kumar Garg Alias Lallu Garg Vs. the Secretry Cooperative Socie ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.13631/2013 (Santosh Garg @ Lallu Garg vs. Secretary, Cooperative Society) ...
Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 WA No.772/13 26.08.2013. Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per Condition No.3 of the Appointment Order (Annexure P/1).appellant could not have been transferred to another district, while by the impugned order (Annexure P/2) he has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Budhar District- Shahdol to District-Anuppur. It is submitted that the appellant being an employee on contract, could not have been transferred. Considering the aforesaid, we direct issuance of notice to the respondents. Steps within a period of three days. Notice on behalf of respondents is accepted by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt.Advocate. He prays for time to seek instructions in the matter. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 24th of September, 2013. Till next date of hearing, operation of the transfer order (Annexure P/2) by which appellant was transferred from Budhar to District-Anuppur shall remain stayed. C.c.as per rules....
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »