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.
Mohd.Salim Vs. Jabalpur Development Authority
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 15055 Of 2008 13.8.2013 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.None for respondent. Heard. Petitioners vide this petition seek direction to respondent to handover the possession of plot No. 5/5, Nazul Block No. 84 admeasuring 25' X 40' = 1000 sq. ft. situate at Civil Centre, Marhatal, Jabalpur and a direction not to evict the petitioners without taking recourse to law. Petitioners claim that, the land in question was gifted by the President, Jahangirabad Muslim Club, Jabalpur vide gift deed dated 30.12.1965 in recognition of the service rendered by petitioner No. 1. On the said land the petitioners have raised a small workshop. The construction of a temporary structure, as per the petitioners, was carried out after obtaining no objection certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Development Authority and the Town and Country Planning Department. Petitioners thereafte...
Surendra Singh Vs. Ramesh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Criminal Revision No.988/2009 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri P.S.Gaharwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.Deb, Government Advocate for respondent no.6-State. Heard on admission. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 1.4.2009 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Appeal No.367/2008, whereby judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Sirmor on 4/3/08 in Criminal Case No.869/06 was modified. Accordingly, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 stand convicted under Section 148 and 324/149 and respondent no.4 also stands convicted under Section 294 of the IPC and released on probation. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7/7/2000 at about 10.30 a.m., in pursuance of a land dispute, co-accused Gopika Prasad assaulted complainant Shailendra Singh with Danda causing injury on the finger of his left hand and Anjani gave a Tangi...
imrat Singh Vs. Raja Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Criminal Revision No.827/2005 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Sharma, Government Advocate for respondent no.3- State. Heard on admission. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the common judgment dated 31.3.2005 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial Nos.61/03 and 94/03, whereby respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 449 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.).The original Sessions Trial 371/01 was decided by the trial Court vide judgment dated 30/9/02, but as the respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with other co-accused persons were absconding, supplementary charge-sheet was filed and S.T.Nos.61/03 and 94/03 were instituted against the respondents. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the respondents Raja Singh and Kusum Ra...
Ku. Urvashi Mudliar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.2276/2012 & W.P.No.1206/2011 14/08/2013 Shri Aditya Sanghi with Shri Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Udayan Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No.3. None appears for Respondent Nos.4 to 8 even though served. In pursuance to the order earlier passed by this Court on 29.6.2011, a detailed enquiry has been conducted by the Director of Medical Education and a report has been filed by him. In the report, the finding recorded is that based on the Pre-Medical Entrance Examination 2010 conducted in the State of M.P., out of 45 students admitted by the respondent/institute in the quota fixed for Government Seats in the private institute, 41 candidates who are less meritorious than the petitioners have been granted admission. It is, therefore, a case that 41 less meritorious students, which includes Respondent Nos.4 to 8 have been granted admission contrary to the merit list prepared...
Ku. Shridevi Urkude Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13385/2013 Ku. Shridevi Urkude vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 14.08.2013 Heard Shri Pradeep Naveria, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 12.7.2013 and 23.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Khara to Gram Panchayat Nevergaonkala, District Balaghat. It is submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. 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 approach the authority themselves by filing a representation. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect t...
Balrem Kavre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13395/2013 Balram Kavre vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 14.08.2013 Heard Shri Pradeep Naveria, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 12.7.2013 and 23.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Budhi to Gram Panchayat Pathri, District Balaghat. It is submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. 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 approach the authority themselves by filing a representation. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case th...
Gulab Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. WRIT PETITION No.17334/2012 Gulab Tiwari & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. _____________________________________________________________ Shri L.N. Sakle, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. ORDER (14.08.2013) The grievance of the petitioners is that they were granted permission to take part in the departmental promotion examination for promotion on the post of Head Constable (A). They were declared successful in the said examination and their names were listed in the list of successful candidates. However, since the said examination was conducted in the year 2012, the serial number of the petitioners could not reach for grant of appointment on promotion as Head Constable, treating as if the said list has lapsed, further proceedings were initiated for filling the posts, in view of the GOP No.77/97 dated 02.04.1997 and GOP...
Laxmi Prasad Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Cr.A.No.2522/2012 14.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri N.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.Deb, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1- State. Heard on I.A.No.26352/2012, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this appeal. As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 27 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby condoned. 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 29.8.2012 passed by I Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.173/2010, whereby respondent Nos.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B in alternative 302 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).while co-accused Umashankar alias Mukesh was convicted unde...
Vinod Kumar Sangam Vs. Sanjay Kumar Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Second Appeal No.311/2010 14.08.2013 Mr.Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents even when the matter is taken up in 2nd round. Heard on I.A.No.3151/2010, an application for condonation of delay. There is delay of 77 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is made out. Accordingly, delay is condoned. I.A.no.3151/2010 is allowed. As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, let this appeal be linked with S.A.No.1434/2009 and be listed in the week commencing 2nd September, 2013 for orders on admission. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC...
Dr. Smt. Ruchira Chaudhary Vs. Shri Prabhanshu Kamal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Conc. No. 820 Of 2011 14.8.2013 Shri Manoj Chansoria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order passed in W.P. No. 14833/2008 (S), present contempt petition has been filed. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada and another . The decision in Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada (supra) travelled to Supreme Court and the entire case was reopened by Supreme Court and the matter was remanded back to this Court whereon the same was reconsidered and decided on 4.4.2012 in the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit . State of M.P. (W.P. No. 2742/2012) along with other 80 writ petitions. That, being so petitioner will have to seek b...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »