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.
Munnalal Patel Vs. Dr.Subhash Singhai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
MA No.2387/2006. 13/08/2013. Mr.S.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.S.D. Khan, Advocate for the respondent. Case is listed for final hearing at motion stage. Arguments heard. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, against the award dated 29.04.2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Labour court, Sagar in W.C.Fatal case No.16/03, whereby claim of the appellants has been dismissed on the ground that it has not been proved that son of the appellants was working as labour for construction work in the house of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention towards para 22 of the impugned award and submitted that claim has been rejected merely on the ground that in the post mortem report place of incident has not been shown as the house of the respondent but on perusal of paras 20, 21 and 22 of the impugned award it is clear that claim has been dismissed on the ground that it has no...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Madhavrao Banjare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Cr.R.No.2163/2009 13.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Pankaj Dubey, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Shri Amit Mazumdar, Advocate for respondent. Heard on admission. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the order dated 17.03.2009 passed by Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act.)).at Bhopal, in Special Case No.4/2008, whereby respondent Madhav Rao Banjare has been discharged of the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d).13(2) of the Act and Sections 120B, 409 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, Prosecution case, in brief, is that while working as Accountant, the respondent again granted the amount of advance to co-accused U.S.Shrivastava, the then Drawing and Disbursement Officer, without taking note of the fact that the latter ...
R.P.Rajappan Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.18978/2003 (O.A.No.567/2002) P.K.Rajappan Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State. ORDER ( .8.2013) This petition was originally filed as Original Application No.567/2002 before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal to this Court which came on transfer after closure of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition. 2: The petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in Rural Engineering Services (hereinafter referred to as the RES for brevity) has approached the Tribunal by way of filing the Original Application, challenging the validity of order dated 13.10.1999, by which the petitioner was terminated from service after a departmental enquiry. It is alleged that when the petitioner was working as Sub Divisional Officer, RES at Chhindwara, a chargesheet was issu...
Ku. Jayshree Nandeshwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.11811/2008 (s) Ku. Jayshree Nandeshwar Vs. The State of M.P. & another Present: Honble Shri Rajendra Menon, J.& Hon'ble Mrs. Vimla Jain, J.______________________________________________________ Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1. Shri V. S. Shroti, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Shroti, for respondent No.2. __________________________________________________ ORDER ( ... 82013 ) Per : Shri Rajendra Menon, J.Petitioner who was a Judicial Officer has filed this writ petition challenging the orders Annexures P/1 and P/ 2 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively removing her from service.2. The Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure P/1 dated 22.1.2008 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service after conducting a departmental enquiry into certain 2 allegations of misconduct committed by the petit...
Ku. Puja Dhurve Vs. Mukesh Alias Shetty
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Cr.A.No.1386/2011 13.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Smt. Sarita Kanojia, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.2-State. Heard on I.A.No.12298/2011, 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 42 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 5.3.2011 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act.).at Chhindwara in Special Case No.49/08, whereby respondent no.1 Mukesh alias Shetty has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 506 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for sho...
Sunil Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
W.P.No.13144/2013 Sunil Shrivastava & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 13.08.2013 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State, on advance copy. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deficit court fee has been deposited on 2.8.2013. In view of the aforesaid, the objection pointed out by the office be ignored. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioneRs.who are holders of B.Ed. Degree and had participated in the selection process for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, have filed this petition stating that they have not been permitted to participate in the process of selection. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and after a perusal of the petition, it is observed on a statement to that effect being made by the learned counsel for the State, that similar petitions, wherein the petitioners had raised the same issue, ha...
Vishwanath Singh Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
(1) Writ Petition No.2693/2013 Writ Petition No.2692/2013 13.08.2013 Shri R.N.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Shri D.N.Shukla, Advocate for respondents no.6 and 7. This order shall decide both the writ petitions. For convenience facts of W.P.No.2693/2013 are taken. Both the matter relates to the election of Co-operative Society namely Sharda Vipran Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Maihar. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- a) To call for the entire record of the petitioners case. b) To issue a writ in appropriate nature to quash the election process of board of Directors of the Sharda Vipran Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Maihar, scheduled to take place from 23.2.2013 being faulty. c) Any other relief which this Honble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be given to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that for elections for the post of Directo...
Bharat Singh Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
1 W.P.No.13153/2013 Bharat Singh Lodhi versus State of M.P.& ORS.13.08.2013 Shri Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority alongwith an application for stay. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so, the concerned authority shall take up the application for interim relief and pass orders thereon expeditiously in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty and observation, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Prabhavati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
W.P.No.13277/2013 Prabhavati vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 13.08.2013 Heard Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the respondent no.3 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Jawa, District Rewa, be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2012 wherein the petitioner has raised a grievance regarding discrimination and being left out for his appointment on the post of Sahayak Adhyapak while similarly situated persons have been given the benefit. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent no.3 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 r...
Union of India Ministry of Railway Vs. Rajesh Kumar Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.17642 OF 201.Union of India and others Petitioners versus Rajesh Kumar Verma Respondent Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menot Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Jain ...................................................................................................... Shri N. S. Ruprah for the petitioners. Shri Akash Choudhary for the respondent. ...................................................................................................... ORDER (13/08/13) As per Rajendra Menon, J:- Challenging the order dated 11th July, 2012 Annexure P-1 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jabalpur in allowing an application filed by the respondent Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma and quashing the charge-sheet issued to him on 17th September, 2008, this writ petition is filed by the Railway Administration.2. Respondent Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma was working as a Dy. Chief Personal Officer in the establishment of West Central Railw...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »