Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Naresh Kumar Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR BEFORE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV, J.W.P.No.10203/2012 Naresh Kumar Sahu Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for respondents. Shri Ramesh Shukla, learned counsel for respondent/Bank. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- & W.P.No.17583/2012 Anil Kumar Agrawal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for respondents. Shri Ramesh Shukla, learned counsel for respondent/Bank. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (26.9.2013) As both the petitions emanates...
Shiv Charan Vs. Mahila Usha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.5884/2011 Shiv Charan -VERSUS- Mahila Usha and another .................................................................................................... Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Varsha Kothari, Advocate for the respondents. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 26th day of September, 2013) Applicant has challenged the order dated 26/10/10 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Tikamgarh in M.J.C. No.48/09, whereby a maintenance of Rs.600/- was granted to the respondent no.2. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 2/4/2011 passed by the learned Sessions judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Revisions Nos.256/2010 and 258/2010, whereby it was directed that a maintenance of Rs.600/- be granted to the respondent no.1 and same maintenance be granted to the respon...
Heeraman Sonkar Vs. the State of M.P. and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Writ Petition No.7167 OF2000Heeraman Sonkar Versus State of MP and Ors. ______________________________________________ Shri Anil Khare,learned senior counsel with Shri Harjas Singh Chapper, for the petitioner. Shri Puspendra Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State. Shri Swapnil Sohgaura, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no.3,4 and 10. Shri J.P. Dhimole, learned counsel for the respondents No.6 to 9. ______________________________________________ PRESENT : Honble Shri R.S. Jha, J.: ORDER (26-9-2013) The petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing the order dated 10.6.1999 (Annexure A-16) passed by the State refusing to accept the proposal of the respondent no.2-Jabalpur Development Authority (for short hereinafter referred to as the JDA.). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the lease deed dated 20.10.2000 executed by the JDA in favour of responde...
Brij Bihari Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 Writ Petition No.17256/2012 26.09.2013 Shri Rohit Sohgaura, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Jain, learned counsel for the State of M.P./respondent No.1. Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Heard. Being denied to enter in the arena for appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II being declared ineligible in the eligibility test 2011 as unable to score 90 marks, the minimum marks to be eligible, and instead awarded 89.44 marks, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking re-totaling of the marks. It being not in dispute that the M.P.Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM for short) in pursuance to advertisement dated 28.9.2011 conducted eligibility test for 22,000 posts of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II. The examination was conducted in accordance with the Rules of Examination 2011 known as Madhya Pradesh Shashan, Panchayat Avam Gramin Vikas Vibhag Tatha Madhya Pradesh, Nagriya Prashasan Avam Vikas Vibhag Ke Antargat Samvida Sh...
Yogeshwar Singh Vs. Suryawali Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Writ Petition No.16105/13 26.09.2013 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Ashok Chourasia, learned Govt. Adv.for State/respondent no.2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.2013 (Annexure-P-1) whereby, his application (Annexure-P-4) filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC., to implead Kamal Bhan Singh and Rajbali Singh, as defendants in the matter with some additional proposed pleadings in the plaint in that regard, has been dismissed. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order argued that, initially the impugned suit was filed in the year 1994 by the present petitioneRs.Subsequently, the name of abovementioned proposed persons were mutated in the revenue record in the year 1998 and in such premises, at the initial stage on the date of filing the suit, such proposed ...
S.K. Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16080/2013 1 26.09.2013 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was earlier allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh at the time of reorganization of the State, against which he made a representation but since the same was not properly decided, he approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition in the year 2006. Pursuance to the direction issued in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the representation of the petitioner was considered and by the order of the competent authority of the Central Government, the allocation of the petitioner was changed and he was allowed to continue in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In the garb of the order passed by the Central Government, now the order of posting in respect of the petitioner has been issued on 22.02.2013 wrongly mentioning the place of posting of the petitioner....
Mukendra Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 Writ Petition No.16764/2013 26.09.2013 Shri Gopi Chourasiya, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State. The petitioners by way of present petition seeks direction to the respondents for consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II, by participating in the second round of counselling. It is urged that the petitioners have been deprived of from participating in the counselling on the ground that the result of Bachlor in Education (B.Ed) has not been declared. It is further submitted that the result has since been declared and the mark sheets only have not been issued. Learned Deputy Advocate General was requested to seek instructions. On instruction, Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record the communication dated 2 Writ Petition No.16764/2013 23.09.2013 by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Bhopal indicating therein that the candidates who have appeared in ...
Droptik Bai Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 Writ Petition No.16584/2013 26.09.2013 Shri U.S.Jaiswal, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State. The petitioners by way of present petition seeks direction to the respondents for consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, by participating in the second round of counselling. It is urged that the petitioners have been deprived of from participating in the counselling on the ground that the result of Diploma in Education (D.Ed) has not been declared. It is further submitted that the result has since been declared and the mark sheets only have not been issued. Learned Deputy Advocate General was requested to seek instructions. On instruction, Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record the communication dated 23.09.2013 by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, 2 Writ Petition No.16584/2013 Bhopal indicating therein that the candidates who have appeared in D.E...
Manish Singh Sisodia Vs. S.N.Rawat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
MA No.3860 / 2010. 26/09/2013. Mr.Amit Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vivek Rusia, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr.D.N. Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Heard on IA No.10304/2010, which is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 23 days occurred in filing the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claim petition being MCC No.127/04 has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide award dated 19.06.2007 in the absence of the appellant because at that time, the appellant was in jail, therefore, he could not appear before the Tribunal for giving evidence and petition has been dismissed in the absence of evidence of the appellant. After release from the jail, the appellant had filed application under Order 9 Rule 8 read with section 151 of CPC and under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was dismissed vide order dated 21.05.2010 in MJ.No.148/09. Thereafter, the appellant had gone out for some urgent work and came...
Rajendra Singh Gaharwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8864/2013 27.9.2013 Shri Prabhakar Singh, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No.15671/2013, an application for staying the proceedings. The applicant has challenged the FIR dated 7.2.2012 registered at Police Station Churhat, District Sidhi at crime No.61/2012 and charge-sheet relating to that FIR. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the FIR the complainant who was working as a teacher in the school has alleged that the applicant assaulted him by giving a slap and he created hurdle in his public duties. The police has registered a case for offence punishable under sections 332, 353, 294, 506 and 333 of IPC. According to the learned counsel for the applicant there is a contradiction between the factual position in the FIR and the case diary statements of various witnesses. However, prima facie it a...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »