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.
Chedalal Chourasia Vs. Jagdish Chourasia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9028/2013 23.08.2013 Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. Heard on admission. The matter is listed today for considering the question of maintainability. It is apparent that a complaint has been lodged by the applicant and the respondent was acquitted vide judgment dated 10.10.2012, and therefore it was expected from the applicant to file an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.whereas he moved an appeal as per the proviso of Section 372 of Cr.P.C.and therefore the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Chhattarpur on 15.3.2013. When the provisions of Section 372 of Cr.P.C.are read, then it would be apparent that an appeal shall be filed as per the provisions shown in the Cr.P.C.and there is provision under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.that in a complaint case, the complainant could file an appeal if the accused is acquitted, and therefore it was for the applicant to file an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.The applica...
Rasik Bihari Vs. Dev Shri Ganesh Ji Mandir Nyas (Sahu Samaj)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
Second Appeal No.706/2013 23.08.2013 Mr.Z.M.Shah, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr.D.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4. Let the records of Courts below be requisitioned. Heard on I.A.No.9171/2013, an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay is made out. Accordingly, I.A.No.9171/2013 is allowed. Also heard on I.A.No.9170/2013. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted 4 weeks' time to file reply to aforesaid I.A.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in possession of the suit property and in case they are dispossessed in execution of the impugned decree, the appellants would suffer irretrievable prejudice. Taking into account the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and in view of the decision rendered in Atma Ram Properties (P.) LTD.versus Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (...
Shubash Bhalavi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
W.P.No.14267/2013 (Shubash Bhalavi ..versus State of MP and otheRs.23-08-2013 Shri Rajmani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to remove the default in Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. Admit. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15-7-2013 by which he has been transferred as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bhatekhare, Janpad Panchayat Seoni, District Seoni to Gram Panchayat Ghugsa, Janpad Panchayat Chhapara, District Seoni. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is presently working in the aforeasaid Gram Panchayat and has been transferred by the impugned order to Gram Panchayat Ghugsa, Janpad Panchayat Chhapara in violation of the transfer policy which says that the transfer should be...
Sadhna Koshti Vs. Triloknath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
Cr.A.No.2562/2010 23.8.2013 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri B.J.Chourasia, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent no.2-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 18.11.2010 passed by Session Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No.33/2010, whereby respondent no.1, Triloknath has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that prosecutrix and accused/respondent no.1 are resident of same Ward and unmarried. Eight months before 30.11.2009, accused came to the prosecutrix with the proposal of marriage on which she refused then he forcibly took her to room and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, continuously for a period of eight months he committed rape with her on the pretext of marriage and impregnated her. When she told h...
Balram Chouksey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
W.P.No.14180/2013 (Balram Chouksey Vs State of MP and otheRs.23.08.2013 Ms.J.Laxmi Aiyer, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Patel, learned counsel for the respondent/Caveator. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that against the impugned order dated 31.07.2013 the petitioner has a remedy under the provisions of the M.P.Panchayat Secretary (Conditions of Services) Recruitment rules, 2011. That apart, it is settled law that the veracity and authenticity of the allegations against the petitioner, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, cannot be decided under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the Cases of A.P.Foods versus Samuel and others (2006) 5 SCC 46.and State of Uttar Pradesh and another versus Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanji Vikas Nigam SangaRs.Samiti (2008)12 SCC 675. Therefore, as the petitioner has a statutory, alt...
Devrao Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.14436/20123. 08.2013 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. In view of the claim made by the petitioner in the present petition, learned Govt. Advocate accepts notices of this writ petition and waives service. The petitioner, said to be working as daily wager, is sought to retire on attaining the age of 62 years with effect from 31.08.2013 vide notice dated 30.07.2013 issued by respondent No.2. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is illiterate, he has not made any declaration about his date of birth not any such date of birth is recorded in the service record. It is not clear from the notice of retirement that as to how it is said that the petitioner has attained the age of 62 years as no date of birth is mentioned in the said notice. Thus, it is contended that in fact there is no record available with the respondents t...
Meghraj Tambrey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
W.P.No.14270/2013 Meghraj Tambrey vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 23.08.2013 Heard Shri Rajmani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Sonkhar, Janpad Panchayat Kavlari to Gram Panchayat Selwa, Janpad Panchayat Laknadoun. 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...
Mohan Lal Arora, Gwalior Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.1859/1998 Mohanlal Arora. versus State of M.P.and two otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State. Shri P.R.Bhave, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. ORDER (29.8.2013) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed seeking a relief against the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner on the post of Stenographer with effect from the month of October 1972, revise his salary accordingly, include the special pay and increments admissible to the said post and to make payment of entire arrears of salary. Since the petitioner has retired on superannuation, it is claimed that the revision of pension be done and all arrears of retiral dues be paid to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was made to...
Vinod Sonakiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
W.P.No.14300/2013 Vinod Sonakiya vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 23.08.2013 Heard Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 7.8.2013 by which the petitioner, who is work as a Tehsildar, has been transferred from Chhatarpur to Singrauli. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation before the respondent authorities which is pending before the authorities and has not been decided till date. It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred on account of the ensuing election and that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the transfer 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 th...
Smt. Rekha Mishra Vs. the Director
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
1 W.P. No.4457/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.4457 of 2011 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Petitioner : Smt. Rekha Mishra Proprietor of M/s. S.D. Stone Crusher, Barapatthar, Seoni (M.P.) R/o Gram Post Bandol, Tahsil Seoni, District Seoni, M.P. -Versus- Respondents :1. The Director, Khadi Gram Udyog Ayog, Irla Road, Villeparle, Mumbai, (MH) 2. Managing Director, M.P.Khadi Gram Udyog Board, B/3, B/4, Wins Office Complex, Goutam Nagar, Bhopal, M.P.3. Branch Manager, Satpura Narmada Kshetraya Gramin Bank, Branch Bandol, District Seoni 4. Branch Manager, Chhindwara-Seoni Gramin Bank, Branch Bandol, Chhindwara, M.P.5. Dy. Director/Manager, Gram Udyog Jila Panchayat Karyalaya, Seoni, District Seoni, M.P. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by - Shri A.M. Trivedi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Jain and Shri N.N. Tripathi, Advocate.. Respondent No.1 - Shri Manish Tiwari...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »