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.
Bhairam Savner Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
W.P.No.13921/2013 Bhairam Savner vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 30.08.2013 Heard Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Khedikitta to Gram Panchayat Hapla, District Khandwa. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 aforesa...
Deendayal Badgaiyan (Dom) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
W.P.No.14425/2013 [Deendayal Badgaiyan (Dom) .Vs..State of M.P.& ors.].29-08-2013 Heard Shri R.P.Kanojiya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Grade-III in the Employment Office, Balaghat, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 3-8-2013, passed by the respondent No.2, Joint Director, Employment and Industry, Bhopal, by which he has been transferred from Balaghat to Dindori. It is alleged that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy formulated by the State Government dated 20-4-2011 (Annexure P-1) which provides that inter-district transfers should be made only after the recommendation of the minister concerned which has not been done in the present case. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent/authorities (Annexure P-3) on 8-8-2013 for redressal of his grievance but no decision thereon has b...
Shivnarayan Singh God Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
W.P.No.13846/2013 (Shivnarayan Singh God.Vs..State of M.P.& ors.].29-08-2013 Heard Shri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. After arguing at length, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he wishes to be transferred and, therefore, the representation (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner on 14-12-2012 be directed to be considered by the respondent/authorities expeditiously in accordance with the transfer policy. In the circumstances, looking to the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today along with a copy of the petition to the respondent/authorities within a week of obtaining the same, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the petitioner's aforesaid representation, dated 14-12-2012 by passing an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law, keeping i...
Guddu @ Dinesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9254/2012 29.08.2013 Shri S.K.Gangrade, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ashok Chourasia, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondent- State. Heard. This sixth repeat petition is preferred on behalf of the applicant Guddu @ Dinesh under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail as he is in custody since 13.05.2010 in connection of Crime No.64/2010, registered against him and other Co.accused at Police Station Betul Bazar for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 372, 376, 342/34 of IPC. His fiRs.application filed in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 3.9.2010 in M.Cr.C.No.7300/2010 by extending a liberty to revive the prayer after examination of the material witnesses of the prosecution. Second application was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 1.3.2011 in M.Cr.C.No.1428/2011 by extending the liberty to revive the prayer after examining the prosecutrix. Third application of the applicant was dismissed on account of not compliance of the peremptory d...
Pradeep Kumar Abrol Vs. Smt.Gita Abrol
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
1 Pradeep Kumar Abrol versus Smt. Gita Abrol F.A.No.21/99 29/08/13 Shri P.C.Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. This is appellant's, husband appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 challenging the judgment and decree dated 9/10/98 passed by the Additional District Judge Umaria, Distt. Umaria in Civil Suit No.2-A/98 dismissing the suit for dissolution of the marriage. The appellant and the respondent were married to each other as per Hindu customs and religious rites on 2/06/94 at Bilaspur. The marriage was settled by one Satyapal Raizada, the father-in- law of the sister of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that his mother was a patient of the Breast Cancer, Diabetes and so also suffering from Glucoma. His father was also suffering from Gangrene. It is said that after his marriage, the respondent wife was not taking care of his mother, was negligent in looking after her, as a result, his mother died on 28/05/96. Thereafter a...
Ruchi JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8293/2012 M.Cr.C.No.8293/2012 29.8.2013 Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Parag Chaturvedi, counsel for the respondent No.2. The applicant has moved a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.to quash the proceeding pending against her before the trial Court relating to crime No.363/2012 registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the respondent No.2 had lodged an FIR against her husband and all family members including the applicant. The applicant was shown to be a girlfriend of her husband. It is also alleged against the applicant that she provoked the husband of the complainant to demand the dowry etc.and therefore, a case for offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the applicant. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and lookin...
Dr. Sanjay Choudhary Vs. the Secretary Govt. of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
(1) Writ Petition No.14380/2013 29.08.2013 Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- i) To quash the impugned order dated 22.6.2013 (annexure P/1).ii) To call all the records pertaining to transfer of 3 areas, i.e.Chirmiri, Jamuna and Kotma and Baikunthpur including the records of 157 meeting of Board of Trustees CMPF held on 22.2.2013 for kind perusal of this Honble court. iii) To grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the present case.The case of the petitioner is that vide order annexure P/1, respondent no.2 has excluded jurisdiction of respondent no.3 insofar as it relates to the units which are falling at Jamuna and Kotma areas and they have been transferred from Jabalpur Regional Office to Bilaspur Regional office. It is submitted by the petitioner that a representation against such an act, annexure P/2, has been filed before the respondent no.1 who may be direct...
Moharsingh Vs. Tarkhibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
Second Appeal No.1236/1999 29.08.2013 Mr. Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission.2. This appeal is by the plaintiff.3. Facts leading to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that one Mayaram was the owner of the land admeasuring 5 acres. Respondent No.14, namely, Ram Singh purchased the suit land vide registered sale-deed dated 17.6.1983 for a consideration of Rs.6,000/- from Mayaram. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction.4. The defendants filed the written statement, in which, the claims set up by the plaintiff were denied. It was further pointed out that the defendants are in possession of the land in question.5. The trial Court decreed the suit. The decree passed by the trial Court was reversed by the Lower Appellate Court in appeal.6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that merely because the defendants were i...
Suryabhan Patel Vs. M. P. State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.6927/2011 Suryabhan Patel Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Amit Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.B. Shrivastava and Shri J.Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (29/08/2013) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed seeking relief against the respondents to grant the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of 25 years of service to the petitioner with effect from 16.07.2004. It is contended that the respondent M.P. State Electricity Board (herein after referred to as 'MPEB') has formulated a policy for granting the higher pay scale to an employee, who has completed 9/18/25 years of service continuously in one pay scale withou...
Bonie Foi Education Society Vs. National Council for Teacher Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
W.P.No.14978/2013 29/8/2013: Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.3. Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents NO.1 and 2 is directed to seek instructions in the matter and submit their reply by 10th September 2013. In the meanwhile, having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Gwalior in various cases being W.P.No.4560/2013 - Maa Gayatri Abhinav Shiksha Prasar Samiti versus The National Council for Teacher Education & ORS.Annexure P/2, we are of the considered view that the steps not being initiated by respondents No.1 and 2 in their meeting held on 13th and 15th June, 2013 for calling for recommendation of the State Government again prima facie is contrary to the statutory provisions and the Gwalior Bench in the case of Maa Gayatri Abhinav Shiksha P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »