Madhya Pradesh Court September 2013 Judgments
Bawanthadi Gurukul Higher Secondary School Bamhani Vs. the State of Ma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
W.P.No.15958/2013 (BawanthadiGurukulHigherSecondarySchool&Ano.Vs. StateofMP&Ano.) 30.09.2013 Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who pray for a direction to the respondents to consider their representation for taking over of the School by the Government, by claiming parity with the directions issued by this Court in W.P Nos.2679/2004 and 1865/2012. It is observed that this Court has disposed of a similar petitions, i.e.W.P No.6645/2012 & 15960/2013. The order passed in W.P No.6645/2012 dated 11.10.2012 is reproduced below:- Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.M.Patel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who pr...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Kumar Burman Vs. the M.P.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.2486/2005 Basant Kumar Burman Vs. The M.P. State Electricity Board & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri D.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents No.3, 4 and 5. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (30.09.2013) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the action initiated by the respondents on the basis of a report sent by the revenue authorities with respect to the issuance of a caste certificate of reserved category. It is contended that if at all the genuineness of the certificate issued in favour of petitioner was required to be inquired into, only the High Power Screenin...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsh Kumar Ahuja Vs. Santosh Srawgi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Writ Petition No.16639/13 30.09.2013 Shri Adtiya Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner/defendant/tenant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2013 (Annexure-P-5) passed by IVth Civil Judge Class-II Katni, in Civil Original Suit No.75-A/2012 whereby, his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the written statement on the basis of documents which has been made available in pendency of the suit so also after closing the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, has been dismissed. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with impugned order argued that, in pendency of the suit, some information was received by the petitioner from reliable sources that the respondent is having the alternate suitable accommodation for the alleged need in the same township of Katni on which, by making the efforts he got the copies of some documents from th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jang Bahadur Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.7952/2013 30.9.2013 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) against the judgment dated 2/5/13 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act)).Sehore in Special Case No.15/2013, whereby respondent Jang Bahadur Singh has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(1) and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/10/12 at about 8 p.m., while the prosecutrix, a member of scheduled caste, was all alone in her house, respondent trespassed thereinto and after pressing her mouth subjected her to rape and threatened her of her life in case she reported the incident. Later, when her husband arrived,...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anita Bai Vs. Shri Ram Jaanki Mandir
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 W.P.No.16622/2013. 30.9.2013. Ms.Pooja Gajra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/defendant/ judgment-debtor/ appellant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.2013 (Ann. P.6) passed by 19th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Misc.A.No.14/2013, whereby in her appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC on her application filed for grant of at-interim ex-parte stay against further proceeding of Execution Case No.196-A/09, pending in the Court of 3rd Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur she has not been granted ex-parte stay with the observation that such prayer shall be considered after serving the notice on the other side. In the couRs.of the arguments on asking the petitioner's counsel whether the notice of impugned appeal has been served on the respondent or not, on which she fairly submits that such notice has been served and other side has given the appearance bef...
Tag this Judgment!Shivkumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2416/2012 1 30.09.2013 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents-State. Though the petition is listed for consideration of I.A.No.5499/2013, an application for urgent hearing, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The only controveRs.involved in the petition is with respect to the selection of petitioner for his deputation posting in the establishment of respondent No.2. It is contended by the petitioner that an advertisement was issued inviting applications from all eligible teachers working in the School Education Department to take part in the selection. The conditions mentioned in the advertisement were later on amended but no rider was put with respect to the previous working on deputation in the very same department. However, pursuance to a circular dated 24.11.2011 wherein it was provided that those, who have completed four years or more dep...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sonam Sen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 WP No.6158/13 30.09.2013. Shri S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner no.5,8 and 9 are belonging to General Category, and do not claim to be OBC, and prays for withdrawal of this petition on their behalf with liberty to file a fresh petition. Prayer is allowed. Petitioner no.5,8 and 9 are permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. Necessary corrections in the cause title be carried out during the couRs.of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on admission. It is submitted by the petitioners that petitioner No.1,2,3,4,6,7 and 10 belong to OBC, and they are entitled for relaxation of 5% marks in the eligibility criteria as per the norms issued by the NCTE vide Notification dated 29.07.2011, and may be permitted to participate in the ongoing counseling. Though the prayer is opposed by Shri Dharmadhikari, lear...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
R.P.No.631 of 2013 30.9.2013. Shri Prabhakar Singh for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.AG for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Naveneet Dubey for respondent No.4. This application is filed seeking review of the order dt.24.6.13 in W.A.No.383/2013 by which a writ appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 was finally disposed of by an order which reads thus : 24.6.2013 Shri Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, on 17-6-2013 we had requested the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State to seek instructions whether the appellant and the respondent No.4 both, can be accommodated at Pawai. In reply to it an affidavit has been filed by the State on 22-6-2013 wherein in para 2 it is stated thus: 2. That, in accordance with the direction given by this Hon'ble Court the vacancy position of...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Singh Vs. Smt. Moolan Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Second Appeal No.367/2012 30.09.2013 Mr.A.M.Trivedi, learned senior counsel with Ms.Nirmala Raikwar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Rakesh Khare, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Mr.P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. Mr.Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.8. Let the records of Courts below be requisitioned. Heard on I.A.No.3637/2012, an application for condonation of delay. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are rustic villagers and reside at a distance of more than 25 kms from Lakhnadon in Seoni District, which is tribal area. It is further submitted that counsel for the appellants, who was conducting the appeal did not inform them about the outcome of the appeal. The appellants came to Jabalpur in the month of January 2012 and contact Ku. Nirmala Raikwar, Advocate who was their previous counsel. Thereafter they learnt that the appeal has already been decided. Thereupon, the appellants obtain...
Tag this Judgment!Fiza Mansoori @ Rankhi Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16563/2013 1 30.09.2013 Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner present before the Court has performed marriage as per Muslim Law as per her choice. Since the petitioner belongs to Hindu caste, her parents and specially the father, respondent No.5, are not accepting the marriage of the petitioner and it is alleged that certain threats have been given to the petitioner and to her husband against which a complaint is made to the Police but no action is taken by the Police Authorities, therefore, seeking protection of life, the present petition is filed. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is adult and according to her free-will she has performed the marriage, in terms of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no obstruction in her free living could be caused by the police authorities. It is alleged that the inlaws of the petitioner are being ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »