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.
Anthony Kiro Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13314/2013 Anthony Kido vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 14.08.2013 Heard Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that he has been transferred from Bhopal to Rewa. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's wife is seriously ill and is undergoing treatment at Bhopal. It is also submitted that the petitioner is being subjected to transfer in the mid session which is contrary to the transfer policy of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed representations, Annexure P-2, before the respondent authorities but no decision thereon has been taken till date. 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 p...
Ramayan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13795/2013 (P.L.Uike versus State of MP and otheRs.14.08.2013 Heard Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.07.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Ghat Pipariya, Tahsil and Janpad Panchayat Dhanora District Seoni to Gram Panchayat Aamgaon Janpad Panchayat, Barghat. 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 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, without entering into the merits of the case the petition fi...
Pancham Lal Uike Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13793/2013 (Ramayan Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.14.08.2013 Heard Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.07.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Harduli, Tahsil and Janpad Panchayat Dhanora District Seoni to Gram Panchayat Navalgaon Janpad Panchayat, Lakhnadon 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 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, without entering into the merits of the case the petition ...
M.P.State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. K.C.Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 W.A.No.841/2009 M.P.State Co-operative Bank LTD.K.C.Sharma & others 14.8.2013 Shri Amit Khatri, Counsel for appellant. Shri Vinot Kumar Dubey, Counsel for respondent No.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 31.7.2009 in W.P.No.9224/2008 by which learned Single Judge has disposed of the matter in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4481/2007, 4482/2007 and 4483/2007 dated 25.9.2007. It is submitted by the respondents that thereafter another matter was heard and decided by this Court in Writ Appeal No.936/2009- M.P.State Co-operative bank LTD.versus Vineet Kumar Dubey and others on 18.6.2013 and the said writ appeal was dismissed by this Court after considering merits of the case. It is submitted by the respondents that the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in W.A.No.936/2009. Learned counsel for appellant though has opposed the aforesaid contention and sought time to seek instructions, but we are not inclined to adjour...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mahendra Khare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Cr.R.No.974/2009. 14.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Sudeep Deb, Government Advocate for petitioner-State. Shri R.N.Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Assem Dixit, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Heard on I.A.No.9359/09 which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this revision. As per office note, the revision is barred by 32 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This revision 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 11/2/2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Sagar, in Criminal Appeal No.120/07, whereby judgment passed by Shri Sanjay Sharma, Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Rehli in Criminal Case No.145/2001 was affirmed. Accordingly, the respondents stand acquitted of the offence...
Smt. Manisha Lalwani Vs. Dwarka Prasad Tamrakar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 FA No.325 o14. 8.2013 Shri Mohd. Ali, counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K.Jain, counsel for the respondents No.1,2,5 and 7. Name of respondent No.3 has already been deleted. Respondent No.6 is dead. None for respondent No.4. Vide order dated 7.8.13 office was directed to list this matter for consideration of IA No.473/05 and IA No.2999/11 and subject to some condition on IA No.7865/13 also but it is apparent from the cause list of today that for the reason best known to the officials of the Registry, the case has not been listed for consideration of IA No.473/05 and IA No.2999/11. Such IAs are related to the question of payment of the Court Fees on this appeal as well as in compliance of the direction of the trial court in the original suit before such court and unless the question of proper court fees is decided by the court by considering such applications, no other application could be taken into consideration to adjudicate the same. Let an explanation be called from the concernin...
Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. Harbhajan Singh (Pajju)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
M.A.No.969/2010. 14/08/2013. Mr.N.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.C.V. Rao, Advocate for the respondents. Heard on IA No.2329/2010 which is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has suffered 80% permanent disability due to alleged incident and because of which, he was not in a position to move a single step without support of two persons, therefore, he could not approach the local counsel. He was under treatment. When he approached local counsel on 6.1.2010 then he came to knot that his case has already been decided on 25.09.2009. Thereafter, he obtained certified copy of the award and appeal was filed. The delay is bona fide. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned award has been passed in the presence of the counsel appearing for the appellant before the learned Tribunal. The awarded amount has been deposited by the In...
Amit Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13842/2013 Amit Kumar Pandey vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 14.08.2013 Heard Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 29.6.2013 and 3.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Deori, District Sidhi to Gram Panchayat Rajgarh. 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 peti...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Santosh Goud
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
M.Cr.C.No.13590/2012. 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Sudeep Deb, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on I.A.No.27231/12, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. As per office note, the leave application is barred by 13 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in preferring the application for leave to appeal is hereby condoned. 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 18/07/2012 passed by XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.765/2011, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that upon a false promise of marriage, on 13/7/11 respondent took her to Village Tikariya...
Dr. Nivedita Mukerjee Vs. Shri Prabhanshu Kamal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Conc. No. 824 Of 2011 14.8.2013 Shri Manoj Chansoria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Sohgaura, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order passed in W.P. No. 2454/2010 (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 be...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »