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.
Anil Dakhare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
W.P.No.3726/2009 (Anil Dakhare versus State of MP and otheRs.27.08.2013 Heard Shri Brajesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State and Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.01.2009 by which petitioner's contractual appointment as Account Officer has not been continued or extended. The case of the petitioner before this court is that the petitioner was initially engaged on contract basis for a period of one year as an Accountant Officer by order dated 03.01.2008 at Janpad Panchayat, Sehore under the District Rural Development Authority. The contractual appointment of the petitioner was continued and extended up to 15.01.2009 thereafter the respondents by recording a finding to the effect that his work was not satisfactory and the work is not available, issued the impugned order dated 15.01.2009 whereby the term for contrac...
Phoolbai Mahra Vs. M/S Hukum Chand Jute and Industries Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
Phoolbai Mahra versus M/s Hukum Chand Jute and Industries LTD.and others.M.C.C.No.276/08 27/08/13 None for the parties. This is an application filed by the applicant seeking review/recall of the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat of the High Court held on 1/11/03 in M.A.No.1397/99.M.A. No.1397/99 was disposed of in the Lok Adalat of the High Court held on 1/11/03 and the appeal filed by the husband of the present applicant Late Shri Prakash Mahra was disposed of in the Lok Adalat on the basis of the agreement entered into between the parties to the effect that husband of the applicant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation i.e.Labour Court in Case No.14/98. It is the case of the applicant that when she filed an application for withdrawal of the amount before the Labour Court on 8/04/05, the same has been rejected on the ground that no amount is deposited in the Labour Court and, therefore, the amount cannot be withdrawn...
Mahindra Pratap Singh @ Munna @ Baba Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.583/2013 Mahindra Pratap Singh @ Munna @ Baba VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri L.S.Singh, Sr. Advocate with Shri J.L.Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 27th day of August, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 29.1.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rewa in Special case No.72/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 363, 366 of IPC and section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as Special Act) were framed against the applicant.2. The prosecutions case, in short, is that, the prosecutr...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kallu @ Prakashpuri
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12332/2010. 27.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, 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 9/9/10 passed by the Special Judge, (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act.).at Katni, in Special Case No.11/2008, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) & 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and under Sections 3(1)(xii) & 3(2)(v) of the Act. Prosecution case, in brief, is that in the night intervening 8th and 9th of July 2010, at about 12, as the prosecutrix turned after urinating outside her house, respondent caught her from behind and after tying her mouth with a piece of cloth, dragged her inside a school situated in front of her ...
Ramkhelawan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
1 Ramkhelawan versus State of M.P.and others.R.P. No.539/09 27/08/13 None appears for the applicant. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned Additional Adv.General for the State. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The matter is pending since 2009 and the case is listed in the list of final hearing cases for the last three weeks. This is an application for review filed under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. for recall of the judgment and decree dated 16/05/08 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in F.A.No.491/98. The said fiRs.appeal was filed under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and by a detailed order passed on 16/05/08, the appeal has been decided and certain enhancement in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer has been allowed. The only ground not stated in this application for review is that in F.A.No.491/98, an application for taking additional evidence/documents on record under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was filed and on 3/07/06 at the stage of motion heari...
Dhanraj Patle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
W.P.No.13800/2013 (Dhanraj Patle..versus State of MP and otheRs.27-08-2013 Shri Ajay Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. The default pointed out by the office is ignored. Heard the 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 Ghunadi to Gram Panchayat Jaharmohgaon, Janpad Panchayat Katangi, District Balaghat. 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 and the petitioner has been transferred 25 K.Ms.away from his present place of posting causing immense hardship to the petitioner in the ...
Smt.Shyam Kali Vs. Smt.Rahamiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.826/1998 Smt. Shyamkali w/o. Ram Singh Pradhan Vs. Smt. Rahamiya w/o. Sammelen Gond. Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Counsel for the respondents : None. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (27.08.2013) This appeal is by the plaintiff, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law :- Whether the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court reversing the finding of the trial Court that there was no partition, is perverse in the eyes of law ?.2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that the plaintiff's father namely Mitthu was owner of the land bearing Khasra No.35/1 admeasuring 2.79 acres. It was pleaded that on death of her father the suit land devolved 2 S . A . No 2. 6 9. 9 8 on the plaintiff. However, the defendants No.1 to 3 dispossessed the plaintiff from th...
Arbind Mandal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
W.P.No.13729/2013 (Arbind Mandal vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) ...
Smt. Shela Vs. Abdul Hafeez
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
CR 42.o27. 8.2013 Shri Amanullah Usmani, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pramod Thakre learned counsel for the respondent no.1/Decree holder. The presence of respondent no.2 is not required for any purpose in the matter as the question involved in this revision could be adjudicated effectively only in presence of applicant and the respondent no.1/Decree holder. Heard on the question of admission. The applicant/objector has filed this revision under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure-1) passed by the VIth Additional District Judge Bhopal, in Execution case No.19-B/80-82 whereby, his application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the averments of the revision memo as well as the papers placed on record along with impugned order. It is undisputed fact on record that with respect of the disputed property some decree has been pa...
Smt. Priya Mahobiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
W.P.No.13782/2013 Smt. Priya Mahobiya vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 27.08.2013 Heard Shri A.K.Rawat learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondents have cancelled the selection of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (LDC) on the ground that the certificates submitted by the petitioner are invalid. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possesses the requisite and valid marksheet issued by Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal to the effect that she has passed the Typing and Servicing Examination as well as Shorthand, Economics and Accountancy Examinations but the authorities are not considering the same by treating them to be invalid and contrary to law and instructions issued in that regard by the State. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has approached the respondent authorities by filing a representation ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »