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.
Geeta Bai Vs. Guljar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
Cr.A.No.59/2013 23.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.3-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 26/09/2011 passed by XI Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No.464/2010, whereby respondent No.1 was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and respondent No.2 was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g)/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7th May, 2010 at about 1 a.m., the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by respondent no.1. FiRs.Information Report (Ex.P/4) was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was filed. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as Government Advocate argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper app...
Smt. Rajkumari Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
W.P.No.14079/2013 (Smt. Rajkumari Dwivedi and another Vs State of MP and otheRs.23.08.2013 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that they have been communicated with order dated 27.05.2013 and 29.07.2013 informing them that they are not eligible for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III on account of the fact that they have crossed the age of 45 years on 01.01.2013. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have infact qualified in the examination held in the year 2011 on which date they were below 45 year. It is further stated that even otherwise under the provisions of M.P.Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of the Contract) Rules, 2005, the women are entitled to 10 years relaxation apart from the other re...
Smt. Kavita Devi Lakhakar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
Writ Petition No.13134 / 2013 (Smt. Kavita Devi Lakhakar...Vs...State of M.P.& otheRs.23-08-2013 Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent/authorities to permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling and give her appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grde-II reserved for Other Backward Classes by granting benefit of reservation as per caste certificate. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner holds the necessary qualification of D.Ed. and has also passed the graduation examination and, therefore, she is entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak. It is submitted that the petitioner, apart from the above, is also entitled to be considered for appointment in the reserved category of OBC as she belongs t...
Gyanendra Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
W.P.No.14209/2013 (Gyanendra Pandey and others versus State of MP and otheRs.23.08.2013 Heard Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioneRs.who have been working since 2009 as Block Programme ManageRs.have filed this petition being aggrieved by the act of the respondents in issuing the advertisement dated 29.07.2013 seeking fresh applications for appointment on the post of District Programme Manager. The petitioners submit that in clause 5.1 of the advertisement the respondents/authorities have restricted the eligibility qualification to MBA in Hospital Management or Hospital Administration or Rural Development. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners hold MBA degree but not in the aforesaid branch and on that count the petitioneRs.who are Block Programme Managers and are entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of District Programme Manager, are being excluded ...
The Commissioner Vs. Pradeep Singh Solanki
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
M.C.C.No.1016/2013 23.8.2013 Mr.H.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.V.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 12. Mr.Ashok Chourasiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondents no.13 & 14. This application has been filed seeking extension of time which has been fixed by this Court vide order dated 29.4.2013 passed in Writ Petition 7634/2013 (S).Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the order dated 29.4.2013 is modified and the competent authority is directed to decide the representation submitted by the writ petitioners within a further period of two months from today. Accordingly, the order dated 29.4.2013 passed in W.P.No.7634/2013(S) is modified. This order shall be read in conjunction with the order passed on 29.4.2013. M.C.C.is accordingly disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RM...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sonu @ Sunil
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10914/2013. 23.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to file 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 01/05/2013 passed by the Special Judge, (under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act.).at Sagar, in Special Case No.240/2012, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363/34 & 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, as well as respondent no.1 of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21/02/2012 at about 8 in the night , the prosecutrix went to answer the call of nature when Sonu Yadav and one accused Kamal came on motor cycle. Accused Sonu Yadav asked her to marry him. Pro...
M. M. Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
W.P.No.14279/2013 M. M. Prajapati vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 23.08.2013 Heard Shri Arubendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 6.8.2013 by which he has been transferred from Malthon, District Sagar to Niwari District Tikamgarh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been subjected to 5 transfers during the period of three years and that the impugned order results in separation of husband and wife as the petitioner's wife is working as Senior Resident in the Department of Pediatric in the Medical College, Sagar. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to 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 ...
Bhagwan Das Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.14376/20123. 08.2013 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notices of this writ petition to the respondents. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, waives service on behalf of the respondents. It is seen that identical claim made by a person similarly situated has already been considered and decided by this Court in W.P.No.14799/2003 (O.A.No.1794/2000).Haricharan Mehter versus The State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 18.07.2013. Relying on decisions rendered in various cases, this Court has categorically allowed the claim made by the person like petitioner in following manner : 6. In view of this, there is no justified stand of the respondents to deny the said benefit to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as appointed on the post of Peon in reserve category w.e.f.the date of his initial appointment i.e.w.e.f.31/12/1993 on regular b...
Smt. Savita Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
W.P.No.13609/2013 (Smt. Savita Vishwakarma & ors ..versus State of M.P.& ors.) 23-08-2013 Heard Shri Arun Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging that the petitioners had participated in the examination conducted by the respondent/authorities for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in the year 2008 but no appointment order in their favour is being issued. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record it is observed that the respondent/authorities have taken up fresh recruitment proceedings for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grades I, II and III in the year 2011 pursuant to which fresh examination and selection process has already been undertaken by them. In a similarly situated petition i.e.Writ Petition No.9134/2013 (Raju Vishwakarma & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 03-06-2013 a Div...
Gurusharan Basant Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
Writ Petition No ::7458. / 2013 Gurusharan Basant and another versus State of MP and others 23.08.2013. Shri Vikram Singh for the petitioneRs.Shri K.S.Wadhwa, Additional Advocate General, for State. Shri Manas Verma for respondent No.3 Shri K.K.Singh for respondent No.4. Shri Mahendra Pateriya for respondent No.5. Petitioners were students who was granted admission to the B.Ed CouRs.in the Academic Session 2007-08, and contending that the result of the petitioners 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 Sardar Patel College of Technology, Mandla, 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, i...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »