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.
Shashi Kumar Lilhare Vs. U.K. Purohit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Conc. No. 829 Of 2011 14.8.2013 Shri Manoj Chansoria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order passed in W.P. No. 2450/2010 (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 benefit in acc...
Dr, Munna Lal Soni Vs. Shri Prabhanshu Kamal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Conc. No. 826 Of 2011 14.8.2013 Shri Manoj Chansoria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Tabrej Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1676/2004, 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 benefit in ac...
Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13945/2013 Sunil Kumar Dwivedi vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 14.08.2013 Heard Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Bandhi to Gram Panchayat Amirati. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also alleges violation of the other clauses of the policy. 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 wi...
Smt. Neetu Raghuvanshi Vs. Shri Prabhanshu Kamal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Conc. No. 850 Of 2011 14.8.2013 Shri Abhay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order passed in W.P. No. 10865/2005 (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 benefit in accordanc...
Shailesh Kumar Barua Vs. Secretary 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...
B.B.Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 B.B.Singh versus Union of India and others.W.P . No.13896/13 14/08/13 Shri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for the Union of India on advance notice. Challenging the order dated 16th July, 2013 passed in O.A.No.554/13 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur and the order Annexure P-2 dated 26th July, 2013 dismissing the review application, this writ petition is filed. Applicant was working as a 'Lower Division Clerk' in the Department of Postal Services and it is seen that certain proceedings were held against him under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and a minot penalty of recovery of ` 84,400/- to be recovered @ ` 8,000 per month was imposed upon him. Challenging the aforesaid imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority, the Original Application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was found by the Cent...
Ku. Aradhana Soni Vs. Sumit Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Cr.A.No.271/2013 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.Deb, Government Advocate for the respondent no.2 -State. Heard on I.A.No.5591/2013, 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 118 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 31.7.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No.35/2012, whereby respondent no.1 has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).As per the prosecution story, on 8.10.2011, when prosecutrix was alone in the house, the respondent no.1 entered into her house and after ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jaipal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12584/2012. 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Sudeep Deb, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 16/08/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna, in Sessions Trial No.52/2010, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 327 & 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).but convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09/04/2009 at about 8 pm, upon refusal of complainant to give money for consuming liquor, respondents along with co-accused Jeetu Singh Thakur, a juvenile, not only filthily abused him but after dragging him out of his Pan Gumti, beat him with kicks and fists and set fire to the Gumti. On the basis of the said report FIR (Ex.P/...
Raju Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Cr.A.No.284/2011 14.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Mukesh Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.Deb, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1- State. Ku. Sonika Shukla, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 6. Heard on I.A.No.2984/2011, 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 24 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 29.10.2010 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.50/09, whereby respondent Nos.2 to 6 have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).while they have been convicted under Sections 147, 342 an...
Dr. Hari Prasad Dixit Vs. Shri Prabhanshu Kamal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Conc. No. 825 Of 2011 14.8.2013 Shri Manoj Chansoria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Tabrej Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order passed in W.P. No. 2457/2010 (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 benefit in acco...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »