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.
Pushpendra Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
W.P.No.8693/2013 (Pushpendra Kumar Mishra & ORS.versus State of MP & Ors.) 30.08.2013 Shri B.K.Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioneRs.who are holders of B.Ed. Degree and had participated in the selection process for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, have filed this petition stating that they have not been permitted to participate in the process of selection. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after a perusal of the petition, it is observed on a statement, to that effect, being made by the learned counsel for the State, that similar petitions, wherein the petitioners had raised the same issue, have been dismissed by this Court with observations in the case of Sanyogita Thakur and others v. State of M.P.and otheRs.reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 206 and without any observations in the case of Jai Praka...
Shashikant Dubey Vs. the Central Industrial Secutiry Force Under the H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
W.P.No.13975/2013 (Shashikant Dubey..versus The Central Security Force, New Delhi & ors.) 30-08-2013 Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 14-5-2013 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Bhopal to Mumbai. It is submitted that the petitioner is a member of CISF and that he is suffering from heart and kidney ailment and marriage of his daughter is due in the year 2014 and therefore the impugned order be quashed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record it is observed that the petitioner has already taken up the issues before the authorities by filing a representation and was granted personal hearing before the respondent No.4 and thereafter the respondent No.4 has rejected the petitioner's representation. It is also clear that ...
Jagmohan Lal Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
W.P.No.8259/2013 (Jag Mohan Lal Shrivastava versus State of MP and otheRs.30.08.2013 Heard Shri N.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondents/authorities have kept the petitioner under suspension for a long period of 19 years during which he has superannuated, on the basis of a registration of a criminal case in which the charges have not been framed till date as the prosecution has not produced the documents. It is submitted that the petitioner's representation for revocation of suspension and for disbursement of retiral dues has not been considered and decided till date inspite of the fact that it has been favorably forwarded by the District Registrar,District Shahdol to the authority at Bhopal and in such circumstances, the appropriate direction be issued. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is...
Pradeep Kumar Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
W.P.No.5033/2013 Pradeep Kumar Choudhary vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 30.08.2013 Heard Shri Anurag Shivhare, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by communication dated 16.11.2012 whereby the claim for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner, in place of his father who died while in service on 9.8.1997, has been rejected on the ground that the application has not been moved within 7 yeaRs.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, at the time of the death of his father, was a minot and therefore his claim was rejected on 16.2.2001 by the respondent District Education Officer on the ground that he was a minot and is therefore ineligible. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner preferred W.P No.13851/2010 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner within two mo...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rajesh Prasad Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3892/2011 30.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on I.A.No.12853/11 for condonation of delay in filing this application for leave to appeal. As per Office note, the leave application is barred by 21 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the application is hereby condoned. 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 being aggrieved with the judgment dated 23/11/2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No.205/09, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 read with 149 and 302 in alternative 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) but respondent no.3 Ayodhya Prasad has been convicted under Sections 304 Part I and 323 of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 4/7/09, Ramvishnu Gupta a...
Anand Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
M.C.C.No.1009/2013 (Anand Singh..versus State of M.P.& otheRs.30-08-2013 Heard Shri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the application for restoration of W.P.No.8571/2013. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to inadvertent mistake of his clerk the listing of the aforesaid writ petition could not be located in the cause list on the date it was listed for hearing and therefore the counsel could not appear to attend the hearing of the case when the petition was called for hearing which resulted in dismissal of the petition. It is further submitted that the reasons for non-appearance of the petitioner before the Court are bona fide and the same being sufficient and justified cause, the writ petition be restored to its original number. The application is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner's counsel and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. W.P.No.8571/2013 be restored to it...
Vijay Krishan Chourasiya Vs. Smt. Vandana Chourasiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9316/2013 M.Cr.C.No.9316/2013 29.8.2013 Shri Niranjan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the proceedings under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.pending before the CJM, Chhindwara in MJ.No.25/2010. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner depends upon the order passed by the single Bench of this Court in case of Nirpat Singh versus Kiran Bai., [(2004) (3) MPLJ 590 .It is true that the decree of divorce was passed by the competent Court and the matter under section 125 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also considered in that decree. In the aforesaid order of Nirpat Singh (supra).the proceedings under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.were found not maintainable because a compromise took place between the parties. However, in the present case, no compromise took place between the parties. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.also deals with the maintenance of the div...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Musarraf @ Ashraf @ Salman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11328/2013 30.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, 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 being aggrieved with the judgment dated 17/4/2013 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.27/2013, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/8/12, under a false promise to marry, respondent eloped with the prosecutrix, aged about 18 yeaRs.and subjected her to sexual intercouRs.and also threatened her that she would be killed in case she divulged the incident to anyone. Upon the aforesaid information given by the prosecutrix after her recovery consequent upon investigation into the Missing Person Report lodged by her mother on 3/9/12 at Police Station Tilajamalpur...
Anirudh Singh Vs. Amresh Kumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
---1--- W.A.No.783/2013 30.8.2013 Shri Abhishek Gulatee, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 15.7.2013 in W.P.No.3152/2012 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant, against an order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 12.10.2011 Annexure P-17 of the writ petition, confirming the order of Revenue Court, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 250 of M.P.Land Revenue Code, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition merely on the ground that title is to be enquired into by the Civil Court and the appellant, if advised so, may file civil suit, while the matter has already been adjudicated by the Civil Court, therefore, there was no occasion for issuing such direction. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that application under Section 250 of M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was filed for restitution of ...
Gopal Sanodiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
W.P.No.13134/2006 20.08.2013 Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul jain, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5. This petition filed in the year 2006 is for the purposes of grant of salary for the period the petitioner has alleged that he has worked in the school known as 'Queen Mary's Convent Higher Secondary School', Sausar, District Chhindwara. It is put forth that the said school is being run by a Society and the said Society is receiving grant-in- aid for the purposes of running the school from the State Government under the M.P.Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapkon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Vetanot Ka Sanday) Adhiniyam, 1978, and the rule made thereunder. However, even after receipt of the grant, the persons like petitioner who were appointed on regular basis and were discharging the duties have not been paid their sal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »