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.
Mahesh Tiwari Vs. Smt. Vimla Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
1 W.P No.14627 of 2013 23.9.2013 Shri Ajit Singh, counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.13 (Annex.P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision No.3780/2-12, whereby allowing the revision of respondent No.1, the order dated 31.8.12 passed by Tehsildar Huzur district Rewa in Case No.385/A-27/11-12 allowing the application of the respondent No.2 predecessor in title of the petitioner under section 178 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 ( in short the `Code') has been set aside and case has been remitted back to the Tehsildar to decide afresh in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 178 of the Code. 2. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments, after going through the record, it is apparent that initially some proceedings filed by the respondent No.2 the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner herein under section 178 of the M.P.Land R...
Shiv Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10939/2013 23.09.2013 Shri Rahul Tripathi, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to challenge the proceedings of the confiscation of a vehicle bearing registration No.MP-22 T- 4221. The facts of the case, in short are that, on 17.6.2012 a vehicle was caught by the police personnel of Police Station, Kewlari relating to the illegal transportation of wood and therefore, the applicant was arrested. A criminal case was registered under Sections 5, 16 & 17 of M.P.Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman Adhiniyam (hereinafter it would be referred as 'the Adhiniyam') and Section 41 of the Forest Act and also the confiscation proceedings were initiated. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is decided by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Premdas S/o Mangaldas Bairagi versus State of M.P.and others ...
Akhilesh Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.12238/2011 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...
Arjun Sen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
1 Writ Petition No.15221/2013 23.9.2013 Shri Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent no.1-State, on advance notice. Heard. Grievance raised by the petitioner is against non-grant of appointment on compassionate ground which petitioner claims in lieu of death of his father. Petitioner's father was employed as Veterinary Attendant in Veterinary Hospital, Gajari, Post Office Tala Distt. Sidhi in the Department of Veterinary Services. He died while on service on 23.4.1996. The petitioner, who was minor and after attaining majority on 1.6.1999, applied for compassionate appointment on 9.11.1999 and 9.10.2001. The request was turned down on 14.6.2002 on the ground that the petitioner's father was employed in the Work- charged and Contingency Paid Establishment and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Vide present petition, the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the order-d...
Smt. Naseem Afroj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16194/2013 1 23.09.2013 Shri Pradeep Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended in the writ petition that the dispute is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Dwarkesh versus State of M.P and another, [2004 (1) MPLJ261 and other analogous matters in W.P.No.2354/2003, W.P.No.2880/2003 (O.A.No.1309 and 2022 of 2002 decided on 30.8.2003) by Indore Bench of this Court and in the case of Ku.Neena Dwivedi and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2004(2) MPHT221 Also reliance is placed on the order passed in the case of Shashi Bhusan Dwivedi versus State of M.P and others (W.P.No.6932/2006(S) decided by this Court on 15/05/2006. It is further contended that after the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases certain instructions were issued by the State Government. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Cou...
Rajesh Agrawal Vs. Surendra Kumar Upadhyay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
CONC No.1958/2013 Rajesh Agrawal vs. Surendra Kumar Upadhyay 1 23.09.2013 Shri K.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging noncompliance of the directions and orders passed by this Court in W.P No.14479/2013 dated 26.8.2013, whereby the Collector, Umaria had been directed to send the record of the case to the Board of Revenue, which has been taken up by the Collector in suo motu revision and against which the petitioner has taken up proceedings before the Board of Revenue. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the direction by this Court the Collector Umaria has not sent the original record of the case to the Board of Revenue and thereby has committed contempt of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Collector has taken up suo motu revision in the matter against the petitioner which is pending decision. The petitioner ...
Kamlesh @ Dadhe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1849/2013 23/09/2013 Shri S.K.Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, PL for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.17457/13, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants. Appellants have been convicted by the trial Court under sections 341, 506-Pt II, 326 of IPC and sentenced to make payment of fine of Rs.500/-, undergo RI for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/-, RI for 5 years & fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of appellants till 9/07/2013. The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally, hence he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. On due consideration of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties alongwith the fact that trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of appellants wi...
The Regional Manager M.P. Warehousingh and Logistics Corporation Vs. M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
1 W.P.No.15233/2013 23.09.2013 Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 30.7.2013 passed by Labour Court Sagar is being assailed vide this petition. Vide impugned order an application preferred by respondent-workman under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for difference of wages of Rs.48,000/- has been allowed. Employed as Chowkidar with the petitioner establishment services of the respondent were dispensed with on 29.12.97, which led him to raise industrial dispute vide reference No.80/2001, ID Act Reference before Labour Court. The reference culminated in the award dated 25.8.2008 of reinstatement without backwages. The award was allowed to attain finality. Alleging non-compliance of award and aggrieved by non-reinstatement till 6.12.2009, the respondent- workman filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of 1947 Act for grant of wages from the period 6.10.2008 to 6.12.2009 at the rate of Rs.3,200/- per month. 2 W.P.No.15233/2013 The ...
Vijay Kumar Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.18006/2011 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...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.19144/2012 1 23.09.2013 Shri K.B.Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that their claims were not considered for promotion, though they were enlisted in the fit list only because of coming into force of a new GOP. It is contended that the issue in relation to the claim made in the present petition by the petitioners is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Virendra Singh Rajput versus State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.17359/2012 and in the case of Laxminarayan Yadav versus State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.9764/2012, decided on 12th July, 2013. It is contended that in view of the fact that since the controveRs.is already resolved by this Court, similar benefit would be available to the petitioneRs.Contesting the claim made by the petitioneRs.returns have been filed and it is contended that the GOP was amend...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »