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.
Mp.Sondiya Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.22498/2003 (O.A.No.788/2003) Mahavir Prasad Sondhiya. versus State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. ORDER (20.8.2013) This petition was originally filed as Original Application before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, challenging the action of respondents in retiring the petitioner with effect from 31.1.2003 vide Annx.A/1, on the ground that the petitioner being an illiterate, was not in a position to declare his date of birth. For the purposes of medical examination, the petitioner was referred to the Chief Medical Officer, Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Rewa, vide memo dated 7.12.1985 and after examination, a certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the said authority on 10.7.1985 categorically stating that the petitioner was 35 years of age at that time. That being...
Dr.Jaikishan Anandani Vs. Secretary Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
Writ Petition No.8883/2009 Writ Petition No.7708/2012 19.8.2013 Per R.S.Jha, J. Shri Akash Choudhury, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/ respondent nos.2 and 5. Shri Rajas Pohankar, Advocate, for respondent no.3. As the issues involved in both these petitions are identical in nature, they are heard and decided together. The petitioneRs.who are holders of M.D.(Anesthesia) and Diploma in Anesthesiology Degrees from S.S.Medical College, Rewa, have filed these petitions being aggrieved by the decision of the Medical Council of India, Annexure P6, whereby it has recommended to withdraw the recognition of M.D.(Anesthesia) Degree and D.A.qualifications granted to the S.S.Medical College, Rewa, under the A.P.S.University, Rewa, in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the decision of the Medical Council of India dated 16.5.1989 to perm...
Dr. Shanti Bansal Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
Writ Petition No.8883/2009 Writ Petition No.7708/2012 19.8.2013 Per R.S.Jha, J. Shri Akash Choudhury, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/ respondent nos.2 and 5. Shri Rajas Pohankar, Advocate, for respondent no.3. As the issues involved in both these petitions are identical in nature, they are heard and decided together. The petitioneRs.who are holders of M.D.(Anesthesia) and Diploma in Anesthesiology Degrees from S.S.Medical College, Rewa, have filed these petitions being aggrieved by the decision of the Medical Council of India, Annexure P6, whereby it has recommended to withdraw the recognition of M.D.(Anesthesia) Degree and D.A.qualifications granted to the S.S.Medical College, Rewa, under the A.P.S.University, Rewa, in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the decision of the Medical Council of India dated 16.5.1989 to perm...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Azad @ Munnalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2940/2012 (State of MP versus Azad alias Munnalal and otheRs.19.08.2013 Per R.S.Jha, J. Heard Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate for State. This application for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Multai in S.T.No.281/10, has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents/accused persons for an alleged offence punishable under section 302/34 of the I.P.C.It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that the court below has wrongly acquitted the respondents by ignoring the statements of Nirmala Bai PW/1, Gulas Bai PW/5, Kusum Bai PW/20 and Bhaddu PW/21 who have clearly stated that the deceased before dying, had named the respondents as persons who had caused injuries resulting in his death. Having heard the learned Government Advocate for the State, it is observed that the case of the prosecution before the the court below was that the decea...
Jai Dinesh Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16790/20119. 08.2013 Lawyers are abstaining the work on account of call of State Bar Council. Perused the record. It is the stand taken by the respondents in their return that the petitioner has been again put as Incharge of the institution after withdrawing the charge from respondent No.4. It is contended in the return that since the relief as claimed in the petition has been granted, the writ petition has rendered infructuous. The grievance of the petitioner is that a junior to him has been made Incharge Headmaster of the school whereas instructions have been issued by the State authorities that only senior persons are to be given the charge on the said post. It is contended that order dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure P-8).both are bad in law. Since the respondent No.4 has been removed from the charge of the post of Headmaster and the said charge is delivered to the petitioner vide order dated 26.09.2011 (Annexure R-1).which fact h...
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Hemant Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
Second Appeal No.1336/2012 19.08.2013 Mr.Vijay Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :1. Whether in view of the fact that the son of respondent No.3 for whose need the suit accommodation was needed bonafide, got employment in Coal Field during the pendency of the appeal, the bonafide need set-up by the plaintiff stands obliterated ?.2. Whether in the facts of the case, the lower appellate Court committed an error of law in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation and Control Act, 1961 ?.. On payment of P.F.by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of this appeal on merit along with substantial questions of law to respondents. The interim order dated 12.12.2012 shall continue until further ordeRs.Certified copy as per rules. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC...
Shankar Vs. Nhdc Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
W.P. No.6703/2013 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Single Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA W.P. No.6703/2013 PETITIONER Shankar s/o Baba Scheduled Tribe Bhil, R/o village Sukwa, Tehsil Punasa, District Khandwa (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 NHDC Limited through Chief Executive Director, NHDC Limited, Parayvas Bhavan, Arera Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary Narmada Valley Development Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. Grievance Redressal Authority Through Chairman/ Member Secretary, Narmada Complex Projects, Narmada Bhawan, 59, Arera Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri A.J.Pawar, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing...
Sarvajanik Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
Sarvajanik Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No ::13343. 16. 08.2013. Shri A.P.Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Shrin Priyankush Jain, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6. This writ petition was filed in the year 2008 and at that point of time, grievance of the petitioner society was limited to the extent that the Fees Regulatory Committee in the impugned order came to the conclusion that fees already determined by the Committee in the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 shall be made applicable for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 also. Be that as it may be. Facts that has came on record goes to show that during the pendency of the writ petition, matter traveled to the Supreme Court and the question involved in this writ petition was considered by the Supreme Court in number of writ petitions and a d...
Bhawanilal Kushwaha Vs. Ravinchand Singh Chouhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
S.A.No.822 o16. 08.2013 Shri A. Zargar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents. It being an admitted appeal is listed today for consideration of IA No.4663/06, appellant's application for issuing ad interim injunction directing the respondents to maintain the status quo with respect of the nature of the disputed property. It is apparent that in last near about eight yeaRs.no reply of this IA has been filed and again the respondents' counsel is seeking time to file reply of the same. Enough is enough and in such premises, he does not deserve for extending further time to file the reply, but in the interest of justice as last indulgence, one more opportunity of fifteen days is given to the respondents' counsel and this appeal is adjourned with a direction to place it under the same head in the second week of September 2012. As an interim measure, till disposal of the aforesaid IA, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo with respect...
General Manager, M.P. Rural Development Authority Vs. Jamuna Prasad Ch ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
M.C.C.No.346/2013 16.08.2013 Mr.Vipin Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr.Vijay Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2. Heard on I.A.No.3069/2013, 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 in filing the application for restoration is made out. The delay is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.3069/2013 is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Second Appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed vide peremptory order dated 16.07.2009 by a Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that due to inadvertence counsel for the applicant has failed to pay PF by registered post with acknowledgment due to respondent No.1. The application for restoration is duly supported by an affidavit. It is well settled in law that for the fault on the part of the counsel, party should not b...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »