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.
Priyank Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
W.P.No.13891/2013 Priyank Dubey & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 29.08.2013 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava learned counsel for the petitioneRs.I.A No.11943/2013, for taking additional documents on record, is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Documents be taken on record and consolidated with the original petition. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioneRs.who have been working since long as Block Programme Managers and other posts in the Scheme under the National Rural Health Mission in districts Hoshangabad and Betul, have filed this petition being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents dated 31.7.2013 by which the respondents have taken a decision not to continue with the services of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons and to bring the services to an end by issuing one month's notice. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been working under the Scheme and Programme of National Rural ...
Srikrishan Malviya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1912/2012 M.Cr.C.No.1912/2012 26.8.2013 Shri Jayant Neekhra, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the trial Court relating to crime No.439/2010 registered at Police Station Babai, District Hoshangabad for offence punishable under section 498-A, 406, 494/34, 506 of IPC. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the complainant is the wife of one Kamlesh whose parents are applicants No.1 and 2 and applicants No.3 and 4 are brothers of Kamlesh. The complainant had lodged a complaint against Kamlesh and the applicants for harassment and dowry demand etc.After due investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that Kamlesh, husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 had moved a petition under sectio...
Smt.Kusum Soni Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.1285/2005 Smt. Kusum Soni Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Greeshm Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (29/08/2013) The petitioner, a widow of an employee of the State Government, has approached this Court alleging that after the death of her husband, she was informed that there was a negative balance in the General Provident Fund (herein after referred to as 'G.P.F.') account of the husband of the petitioner and the said amount was to be recovered from the terminal dues to be paid to the petitioner. That being so, a recovery has been intimated to the petitioner vide the impugned order. It is contended...
Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. Gulab Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
1...R.P.No.93 of 2013 Smt. Sheela Devi Gulab Singh & ORS.29.08.2013 Shri J.L.Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, Counsel for respondents No.2. Shri S.D.Mishra, Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel who was appointed as Mediator in the matter by order dated 26.8.2013, has submitted his report. It is submitted by him that by his mediation both the parties have arrived at a settlement which he has reduced in writing and filed the same in the Court today. He further submitted that the earlier report submitted by him may be substituted with the report which he has filed today because in the earlier report in place of respondents No.3 and 4, respondent No.1 and 2 was typed wrongly which error has been rectified by filing another mediation report today. The aforesaid settlement has been signed by Shri Agrawal and also by the counsels of both the parties. From the perusal of the report, we find that as per the settlement, the petitioner he...
Rati Ram Awasthi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
W.P.No.13893/2013 (Rati Ram Awasthi..versus State of MP and otheRs.29-08-2013 Heard Shri Jitendra Tiwari, 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 Secretary, Gram Panchayat Deopur, Janpad Panchayat Badamalarha to Gram Panchayat Padaria, Janpad Panchayat Bakswaha, District Chhatarpur. It is alleged that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy formulated by the State Government under M.P.Panchayatraj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 as no one has been posted in place of the petitioner at Gram Panchayat Deopur and the petitioner cannot join at the transferred place of posting for want of vacant post. 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 re...
Rajesh Kumar Lodhi Vs. Sanjeev Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
Conc. Petition No.646/2013 (R.K.Lodhi versus Sanjeev Singh and otheRs.29.08.2013 Shri N.S.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/ Contemnor. Ms.Ranjana Nagar, Chief Executive Officer, Gotegaon is personally present before this court. As inspite of orders being passed by this court on previous occasion, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gotegaon was not present in the court except for filing an incomplete reply to the contempt petition, inspite of several opportunities, therefore, this court had directed issuance of bailable warrant against the C.E.O.Janpad Panchayat Gotegaon for ensuring her personal presence on 29.08.2013 i.e.today. Pursuant to the order passed by this court the C.E.O.Janpad Panchayat, Gotegaon is personally present before this court. It is stated that though reply had been filed by the respondent No.3 denying the claim of the petitioner, however, subsequently on examining the case of the ...
Rukmini Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
W.P.No.13762/2013 (Rukmini Pratap Singh..versus State of MP and otheRs.27-08-2013 Heard Shri Gopal Singh, 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 Secretary, Gram Panchayat Jiwar, Janpad Panchayat Sirmour to Gram Panchayat Sathini, Janpad Panchayat Sirmour. It is alleged that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy formulated by the State Government under M.P.Panchayatraj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 as the policy states that the Panchayat Secretary should be transferred to nearby Gram Panchayat or to the adjacent Gram Panchayat 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-4) on 22-7-2013 for redressal of his grievance but no decision thereon has been taken by the au...
Shakuntala Majhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2472/2011 27.08.2013 Shri Bhupendra Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State. Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, counsel for the respondent No.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has challenged the proceedings pending before the J.M.F.C.Gadarwara District Narsinghpur, whereby a criminal complaint has been initiated by the respondent No.2. The facts of the case, in short is that, the applicant is working as a Teacher Class-II. She got her appointment on the basis of caste certificate that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No.2 wrote a letter to the Collector for getting the information as to whether such certificate was issued by his office or not then, a reply has been received that no such certificate has been issued from the office of the Collector therefore, the respondent No.2 has initiated a criminal complaint against the applicant that she got the job on the basis of a fake caste certifica...
N.D.Rahi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 11317 Of 2007 27.8.2013 Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in view of the order passed by Division Bench in W.P. No. 7352/2007 Bhartiya Alternative Medical Foundation and others v. State of M.P. and others and batch of other petitions decided on 22.7.2010 no cause now survives in the present petition. Writ Petition No. 7352/2007 and batch of petitions were directed against the order dated 11.4.2007 (assailed in the present petition) whereupon the Division Bench after taking into consideration the amendment in Section 2 (e) of Madhya Pradesh Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha Prakratik Vyavsay Adhiniyam, 1970 as also amendment in M.P. Chikitsiya Shiksha Sanstha (Niyantran) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam 2006 upheld the order dated 11.4.2007 and dismissed th...
Roop Singh @ Ruppu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3895/2011 M.Cr.C.No.3895/2011 27.8.2013 Shri A.K.Jain, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants have challenged the proceedings pending against the applicants before the JMFC, Patan, District Jabalpur for offence punishable under sections 294, 306 of IPC. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 13.2.2011 one Halkai Prasad Tiwari had committed suicide. A dying declaration was recorded, in which the deceased has stated that the applicants were harassing him and therefore, he committed suicide. Thereafter, the police investigated the matter and some witnesses told that the applicants told the deceased that why he was flowing the dirty water on the road then, the deceased told that the water will be evaporated and there will be no problem when Barat will arrive. Thereafter some filthy abuses took place between the parties. One Laxman Patel saved both of them and separate...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »