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.
Sharaf Ohab Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.1242/2012 1 23.09.2013 Shri Akash Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. It is contended by learned Counsel for the parties that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court, Bench at Indore, in W.P.No.7675/2011 (S).Diwakar Rao Rojaskar versus The State of M.P.& another, decided on 26.08.2013. It is not in dispute that after examining the records of the examination, this Court has reached to the conclusion that the allegations of irregularities committed in conducting the examination and declaring the results of persons like petitioner are serious in nature and, therefore, this Court has directed that revaluation of the answer-sheets of the persons like petitioner be conducted by constituting a two members independent Committee. In view of this, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition can be dispose...
M.P. Revenue Officers Administrative Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16164/2013 1 23.09.2013 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. The grievance of the petitioners is that there are lot of vacancies available on the posts of Deputy Collector, which are to be filled in by promotion in terms of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh State (Administrative Service) Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975 but despite making available the information with respect to the number of candidates available for convening the D.P.C., action is not being taken by the respondents. In fact the information was sought vide memo dated 8th August, 2013. Such an information is already submitted. The lists are made available with respect to the candidates, who are to be considered for promotion but still no action is taken despite making of a detailed representation by the petitioner No.1 Association, therefore, this writ pet...
Nagendra Prasad Vs. Ram Sunder and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.M.Cr.C.No.2627/2004 Nagendra Prasad VERSUS Ram Sunder Patel and another --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.K.Pathak, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent No.1. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A. for the State/respondent No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 24th day of September, 2013) The applicant has challenged the order dated 2.1.2004 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in criminal revision No.109/2001, whereby the order dated 4.5.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi in criminal case No.458/2001 was confirmed, in which the learned CJM has registered a criminal complaint against the applicant and other co-accused persons for offence punishable under sections 466, 471, 420, 120-B of IPC.2. The facts of the ca...
Sitaram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10977/2013 23.09.2013 Shri R.L.Ariha, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.144/2012 at Police Station, Shahpur and a Criminal Case No.7/13 pending before the J.M.F.C.(Shri Satish Basunia) Mauganj, District Rewa. The prosecution's case, in short is that, the complainant Smt. Gajaratiya had lodged an FIR on 11.10.2010 about an incident by which a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 & 506/34 of IPC against four persons namely Chintamani, Luvkush, Antav and Dinesh Kushwaha. Thereafter, the complainant gave a written report (Annexure-P/2) to the S.H.O.Shahpur, by which name of some accused persons were added and therefore, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant for the said crime. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no name of ...
Pradeep Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.21771/2011 1 23.09.2013 Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. It is contended by learned Counsel for the parties that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court, Bench at Indore, in W.P.No.7675/2011 (S).Diwakar Rao Rojaskar versus The State of M.P.& another, decided on 26.08.2013. It is not in dispute that after examining the records of the examination, this Court has reached to the conclusion that the allegations of irregularities committed in conducting the examination and declaring the results of persons like petitioner are serious in nature and, therefore, this Court has directed that revaluation of the answer-sheets of the persons like petitioner be conducted by constituting a two members independent Committee. In view of this, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition can be dis...
Harisingh Tekam Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.8211/2011 1 23.09.2013 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. It is contended by learned Counsel for the parties that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court, Bench at Indore, in W.P.No.7675/2011 (S).Diwakar Rao Rojaskar versus The State of M.P.& another, decided on 26.08.2013. It is not in dispute that after examining the records of the examination, this Court has reached to the conclusion that the allegations of irregularities committed in conducting the examination and declaring the results of persons like petitioner are serious in nature and, therefore, this Court has directed that revaluation of the answer-sheets of the persons like petitioner be conducted by constituting a two members independent Committee. In view of this, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition can be disposed ...
Sandhya Kale Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Chhindwara
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
1 W.P.No.14602/13. 23.9.2013. Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2013 (Ann. P.8).passed by respondent No.3/ Collector, Chhindwara in revenue case no.145/B-121/2009-2010, whereby dismissing his appeal under Section 9 of Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali).Adhiniyam, 1974, (In short the Adhiniyam) the order dated 16.1.2010 passed by SDO (Revenue).Chhindwara in revenue Case No.290/B-121/2008-2009 directing the petitioner to vacate the alleged disputed premises under the provision of aforesaid Adhiniyam has been affirmed. In the couRs.of the argument on asking the counsel that the provision of Section 9 of aforesaid Adhiniyam, which provides the remedy of appeal against the order of SDO is para materia with the provision of Section 9 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules, 1971 and aga...
Krishna Kumar Namdeo @ K.K. Namdeo Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Criminal Revision No.1572/2013 23.9.2013 Shri Ajeet Singh, Advocate for, the applicant. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, Advocate, for the non-applicant. This revision is directed against the order dated 1.8.2013, Annexure A-1, passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, (CBI) Bhopal, in case No.SC-CBI/7/2011 whereby he has reviewed his earlier order dated 18.7.2013 regarding recalling of prosecution witness Mohammad Abdullah for further cross-examination. The applicant is being prosecuted for offences under sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution, after examining its witnesses, had closed the case and the trial was fixed for the examination of defence witnesses. At that stage, the prosecution filed an application for correction of dates mentioned in the charges framed against the applicant. The changed dates related to period of offence committed by the applicant. The trial court accepted the mistake regarding the ...
Lakhpati Vishwakarma Vs. Dr. Naveen Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12519/2013 M.Cr.C.No.12519/2013 23.9.2013 Shri Ashish Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the proceedings of criminal revision No.17/2013 that it was not maintainable and the application filed by the applicant before the revisionary Court that it was not maintainable, was not decided as an interlocutory application. The facts of the case, in short, is that, the applicant had moved a criminal complaint against the respondents, which was registered by the trial Court vide order dated 4.1.2013 by the learned JMFC, Singrauli for offence punishable under sections 167, 193, 196, 427, 465, 471 of IPC. The revision was filed by the respondents against the registration of the complaint. The applicant has moved an application before the revisionary Court that there was no jurisdiction to the revisionary Court to hear the revision. However, the revisionary Court did not pass any order on the application filed by the applicant and therefore...
Kailash Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
W.P.No.6003/2012 Kailash Agrawal vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 23.09.2013 Shri Arun Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Shri Ashish Shroti learned counsel for respondent no.2. Shri N.K.Salunke learned counsel for respondent no.3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 26.8.2013, it is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner had applied for compounding of the construction, pursuant to which the respondent Municipal Council has passed an order on 16.9.2013 imposing compounding charges to the tune of Rs.1,56,86,160/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compounding charges are far in excess of the statutory permissible limit and have also been imposed on area where no construction has been raised. The learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Council, per contra, submits that the petitioner may raise objections in this regard before the authority who shall co...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »