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.
Kumbhaj Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.19169/2012 (Kumbhaj Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.14.08.2013 Heard Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief of regularization in the establishment of the respondents alleging that the petitioner is working as a daily wage employee in the contingency paid department of the respondents prior to 31.12.1988. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the the petitioner had filed W.P.No.16502/06(S) and the same was disposed of by this court on 18.12.2008 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization by taking into consideration the fact as to whether any person junior to the petitioner had been regularized. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents be directed to regularize the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and from a perusal of the record, it i...
Jamuna Prasad Tripathi Vs. Subhash Chandra Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Cr.R.No.1071/2011 14.8.2013 Shri S.K.Dubey counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents. Notice issued to the respondent no.1 is returned with the information that he is absconding. Respondents no.2 and 3 are formal parties. Under such circumstances, heard learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 21.4.2011 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Criminal Revision No.142/2009 whereby the order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi in Criminal Case No.376/2011 whereby the complaint filed against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.Facts of the case in short are that the complainant was the President of Shikshak Palak Sangh relating to Primary School, Sudwar and the applicant was Head Master of that School. Since the complainant was not withdrawing the money so many important work relating to the students were held up...
M/S Birla Jute Manufactring Co. Ltd Satna Vs. Sayeed Houseing
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 MCC No.794 o14. 8.2013 Shri Mohd. Siddiqui, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent although served. Heard on IA No.7210/13 applicant's application for condoning the delay in filing this petition for restoration of MCC 1437/10 which has been dismissed on account of non-compliance of the peremptory direction of the order dated 22.10.10 directing to cure the default raised by the office. As per office report, this petition is preferred barred by 950 days. Having heard the counsel, on perusing the averments of the IA, I have not found the proper explanation with requisite particulars in which the aforesaid long delay has taken place in filing the petition for restoration. So, in such premises, in the aforesaid IA there is no any cause which could be treated to be sufficient for condoning the alleged delay in filing the petition for restoration of the MCC. Consequently, the IA is hereby dismissed. Pursuant to it, this petition for restoration is also dismissed as barred by tim...
Devi Prasad Chakrawarti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Writ Petition No.13345/2013 (Devi Prasad Chakrawarti .Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.14-08-2013 Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, 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 being aggrieved by the fact that the respondents, Collector and Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Betul, District Betul are not permitting the petitioner to work as Project Officer in the Water Shed Management Mission, Betul in spite of the fact that the competent authority i.e.the Director of the mission has not cancelled the contract of appointment of the petitioner not has he passed any adveRs.order against the petitioner and on the contrary, his term of contract has been extended for two years by order dated 15-5-2012 (Annexure P-4).It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain allegations by way of an anonymous complaint were made against the petitioner while he was working a...
Yogesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13205 of 2013 Yogesh Kumar Choudhary vs State of M.P. & others 14/08/2013 Shri Sanjeev Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Heard.2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (A) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities 1 to 3 to conduct the inquiry against respondent No.5. (B) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to 3 to remove/terminate to respondent No.5. (C) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the competent authority to lodged FIR and punish accordance with laws to respondent No.5, in the interest of justice. (D) Any other order/orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit the proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed.3. The case of the petitioner, who happens to be a Secretary of AJJAKS is that the appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Stenographer Grade-III in the office of Colle...
Farha Ashraf Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.1835/2013 14/08/2013 Shri Amit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for Respondent No.3. Keeping in view the order passed on 7th of August, 2012 by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15025/2011 (Smt. Vartika Tripathi versus State of M.P & Ors.).wherein with regard to the same examination i.e.Bachelor of Education i.e.B.Ed. for the academic session 2009-10, certain directions have already been issued to the Barkatullah University, Bhopal, this petition is also disposed of in identical terMs.The action be taken in this case also in accordance with the directions already issued on 7th of August, 2012 in W.P.No.15025/2011. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) (Mrs.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge nd...
Smt.Sindhu Pillai Vs. Tirathraj Pillai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
C.R.No.58/2008 14.08.2013 None for either of the parties. On perusing the earlier proceeding, I have found that on listing the matter on 13.2.2008 no one was present to prosecute this revision. Consequently the same was adjourned and the same position is today that on taking up the matter no one is present to prosecute the same. In such premises, it appears that the applicant is no more interested in prosecuting the present revision. Consequently the same deserves to be dismissed. Even otherwise on merits of the matter, it is apparent that the application of the present applicant filed under Order 9, Rule 7 of the CPC was dismissed taking into consideration the circumstances that same was filed after fixing the case by trial court to deliver the judgment in the matter and in view of settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Arjun Singh versus Mohindra Kumar and others reported in AIR 1964.SC 99.holding that after posting the case for delivery of the judgment no a...
Dashrat Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 W.P.No.12190/2013 (PIL) Dashrat Lodhi & another State of M.P.& others 14.8.2013 Shri Siddharth Seth, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, GA for respondents. Petitioners have sought following reliefs:- (i) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order, dated 28.5.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.2 as also the orders passed by District Collectors/Magistrates (Annexure P/2) and others imposing Sec.144 of Cr.P.C.in academic institutions including colleges and universities throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh; (ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to frame guidelines and norms for creating a better and healthy academic environment for students and for also ensuring their safety; (iii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition directing the respondents not to harass the students and teachers in the academic institutions; (iv) To direct the ...
Kalyan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1324/2013 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.Deb, Government Advocate for the respondent-State. Heard on admission. The appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the trial Court has already been received. Also heard on I.A.No.12535/13, which is fiRs.application, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Kalyan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution case was based upon circumstantial evidence and one Mobile Phone, belonging to deceased, was recovered from the appellant vide seizure memo (Ex.P/25).According to him, except this, there was no evidence against the appellant and as decision of the appeal was likely to take time, benefit of bail may be extended to the appellant. In response, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the application. The I.A.is, acc...
Amrutlal Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1...W.A.No.695 of 2013 Amrutlal Kushwaha State of M.P.& ORS.14.08.2013 Shri Deepak Pendharkar, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A.for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 24.6.2013 in W.P.No.10642 of 2013 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against various orders passed by the authorities were dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant at the out set submitted that against the removal order of the appellant from the office of Sarpanch under Section 40 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam,1993, an appeal is pending before the Collector, Satna since December,2012 which may be directed to be decided expeditiously. The prayer made by Shri Pendharkar is not opposed by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned G.A.In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this appeal with the following directions :- 1. The Appellant may file an application before the Collector, Satna for expeditious hearing of appeal in case No.47-A/12-13.2. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »