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.
Sunil Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
W.P.No.13406/2013 (S.K.Jain versus State of MP and otheRs.16.08.2013 Heard Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the charge sheet dated 18.02.2010 and order dated 18.06.2013 constituting a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Forest Ranger and in respect of certain sale of land, which is said to be forest land, the departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and the concerned Divisional Forest Officer. It is submitted that the proceedings against the Divisional Forest Officer have been dropped on recording a finding to the effect that there is a dispute as to whether the land in question is a forest or revenue land and in such circumstances, as the respondents have already dropped the proceedings against the D.F.O., the charge sheet issued against the ...
Smt. Razia Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
W.P.No.13511/2013 Smt. Razia Khan vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 16.08.2013 Shri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudeep Chatterjee, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is holding D.Ed. Degree and although qualified and selected and inspite of issuance of an order of allotment to the petitioner for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, she has not been given any appointment not has she been called for counselling. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation before the respondent authorities within fifteen days from today alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has ...
Anantram Alias Anandram Vs. Mewalal Chourasia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
Civil Revision No.320 o16. 08.2013 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on IA No.9432/13, applicant's application for amendment in the revision memo. For the reasons stated in it, so also keeping in view that the same has been filed for curing the default raised by the office in the revision memo, is allowed. The applicant's counsel is directed to carry out the necessary correction in revision memo during the couRs.of the day. With the permission of the court, the same has been carried out by him. Accordingly the same is certified. At his request he is heard on the question of admission. This revision has been preferred under Section 23-E of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act 1961, in short The Act., being aggrieved by the order dated 18.6.2013 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, District Katni in Revenue Case No.06/A-90(3)/07-08, whereby allowing the application of respondent filed under Section 23-A of the Act, the order to evict the applicant from the dispute...
Neelakanth Rao Sapre[D]lrs.Vinay and anr Vs. the State of M.P. and anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
1 W.P. No.2888/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA Writ Petition No.2888/2003 PETITIONER : Vinjay Sapre S/o. Shri Neelkanth Sapre, R/o. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Ward, Khurai, District Sagar (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS:1. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary Forest Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal.2. Competent Authority cum Forest Regional Officer, Forest Region, Khurai, District Sagar (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by Shri Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate. Respondents by Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Government Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (16.08.2013) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- a) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6, passed by the Competent...
Eedal Chand (D) Lrs Smt. Somvati Bai JaIn Vs. Mangal Chand (D) Lrs Sub ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
M.C.C.No.1129/2012 16.08.2013 Mr.Dinesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.Brajesh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on I.A.No.13609/2012. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Second Appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 10.09.2012 by this Court. It is further submitted that due ill health of arguing counsel the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. 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 be penalized [See : Rafiq and another versus Munshilal and another, AIR 198.SC 140.and Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and another versus Raghu Raj, AIR 200.SC 514.].For the aforementioned reason, I find that sufficient cause for restoration of the S.A.No.715/2001 is made out. Accordingly, S.A.No.715/2001 i...
Siddharth Kumar Chourasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
W.P.No.14071/2013 Siddharth Kumar Chourasiya vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 16.08.2013 Heard Shri Surya Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 25.7.2013 by which the posting of the petitioner from Govt. Primary School Kachnara to Govt. Satellite School Siddhnagar has been cancelled and the petitioner has again been directed to join his original place of posting at Kachnara. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 25.7.2013 has been passed by the respondent authorities totally misinterpreting the direction issued by the Chief Executive Officer dated 16.7.2013. It is submitted that the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Panna had not issued any direction to the Janpad Panchayat, Gunour to cancel the order but the respondent no.5, the Principal of the Higher Secondary School, Patna Tamoli, District Panna, has iss...
Smt. Pusphlata Gawle Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
MCC No.990/2013 16/8/2013: Shri Vinot Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed pointing out that the name of petitioner's husband is Shri Suryakant Gawle whereas in the order passed in Contempt Case No.936/2013 the name is incorrectly shown as Shri Anturam Gawle. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant it is seen that the name of the husband was incorrectly indicated by the petitioner herself in the cause title of the Contempt Petition and therefore, the application infact is for correction of the particulars of the petitioner in the cause title and there is no error in the order passed by this Court. An error committed in the pleading or cause title cannot be corrected in the manner as sought for. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, this application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Surendra Kumar Vs. Narayan Chouksey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
1 WRIT PETITION NO.12002/2013 16/08/2013 Shri G.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 05.03.2013 and 30.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Division Jabalpur is being assailed by this writ petition. By order dated 05.03.2013, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Rule 84-B of the Madhya Pradesh (Mandi Samiti Ka Nirvachan Niyam).1997 has been dismissed. Whereas, by order dated 30.04.2013, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by respondent No.1 seeking amendment in the relief clause has been allowed. Election Petition under section 66 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 is at the instance of respondent No.1 against the election held on 20.12.2012 of 'Vyapari Sadsaya' wherein the petitioner was declared elected. Election Petition is 2 WRIT PETITION NO.12002/2013 on the ground that in the voter list the name of respondent No.1 i.e.the election petitioner one Shri Surendr...
Lotan Prasad Mishra Vs. Ramprasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
Criminal Revision No.1193/2003 Criminal Revision No.1547/2003 16.08.2013 Shri R.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S. Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Since both the revisions are arising of a common order, therefore the same are heard simultaneously and decided by common order. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants by these revisions have challenged the order dated 24.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari District Shahdol in Criminal Revision No.187/2002 whereby the order dated 1.6.2002 passed by the learned JMFC Beohari was set aside and the matter was remanded. The prosecution case, in short, is that the respondent No.1/complainant had lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants and others that a demand notice was submitted by the applicants and accused persons, whereas the complainant was not responsible for such a payment, because demand was made for any other land which was not of the complainant, and theref...
Vineeta Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
W.P.No.6973/2013 (Vineeta Mishra versus State of MP and otheRs.16.08.2013 None for the petitioner. Record perused. The petitioner, who holds B. Ed. qualification and has obtained 46.83 marks in the graduation, has filed this petition seeking appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II. It is stated in the petition that though the petitioner possesses necessary qualifications but her documents have not been verified not has she been called for counselling. The issue as to whether the petitioner is actually qualified or not under the rules and whether she is entitled to counselling for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II is required to be considered by the competent authority. In view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the case the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a representation along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition be...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »