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.
Sanat Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
1 W.P.No.15604/2013 18.9.2013. Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P.L.for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner who is working as Sub Inspector at Rewa has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order/ decision dated 4.3.2012 passed by respondent No.3 as Order No.1553/13 for issuing appropriate writ for the following reliefs:1. a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order (Ann. P.3).2. a command to Respondents to refund the amount deducted from the petitioner's salary.3. to grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances. The petitioner counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on record along with the aforesaid order dated 4.3.2013 (Ann. P.3).argued that earlier the petitioner was posted at Jabalpur and while such posting he was allotted government accommodation where he along with his family was residi...
General Manager ( R and R ) Vs. Vijay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
F.A.No.706/2011 General Manager versus Vijay Singh & ORS.18/09/2013 Shri Sourabh Sundar learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S. Upaddyay, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A.No.9125/2011 and considering the fact that the amount of `1,50,000/-, which was permitted to be withdrawn by Respondent No.1 on 7.8.2012 has been used by the respondent for payment of court fee on the cross objection, we further permit the respondent the withdrawal of ` 1 Lac. On the respondent's furnishing a security to the satisfaction of the trial court, the court below shall permit Respondent No.1 Shri Vijay Singh to withdraw the further sum of `1 Lac deposited by the respondent in the trial court. With the aforesaid, I.A.Nos.6786/2013 and 9125/2011 stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge nd...
Prabhat Mishra Vs. Ramlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
1 W.P.No.16044/13. 18.9.2013. Shri R.P.Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anuj Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the respondent No.5/ Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision not R-2001-II/2011 whereby setting aside the order of the Commissioner 22.11.2011, the order dated 16.4.2008 passed in favour of the respondent by the S.D.O. has been restored. Initially the Senior counsel after taking me through the impugned order along with the orders of the subordinate revenue authorities so also the other papers available on the record, said that on proper appreciation of the matter the order passed by the Commissioner ought to have been affirmed by the Board of Revenue but the same has been set aside under the wrong premises. In continuation he said that the petition being bonafide purchaser of the dispute...
Natwarlal Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
W.P.No.16068/2013 (Natwarlal Gupta versus State of MP and otheRs.18.09.2013 Heard Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the State on advance copy and Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on caveat on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 06.09.2013 on the ground that it amounts to frequent transfers and it has been passed to accommodate the respondent No.4. It is also submitted that he has been transferred thrice in a year. The petitioner alleges that he has been transferred in violation of the transfer policy. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 on caveat submits that the petitioner has been relieved and the respondent No.4 has joined his place of posting at Forest Range Office, Maihar on 09.09.2013. A Division Bench of this Court in R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Baba @ Bhola Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.6166/2013. 18.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General 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 20/03/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna in Sessions Trial No.12/2012 whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 364-A & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08/01/2010 at about 6.40 p.m., when complainant Malla (PW1) was inside his house, upon information of his niece Bhaggu (not examined).he rushed to the spot and found that Premlal was caught by 4 miscreants and other two were firing in the air. He caught the feet of the accused who was firing and requested him to leave Premlal, upon which he assaulted the complainant with the Gun on his ...
Ranjeeta Dehariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Writ Petition No ::5310. / 2013 Ranjeeta Dehariya versus State of MP and others 18.09.2013. Shri N.S.Thakur for the petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, Additional Advocate General, for State. Shri K.K.Singh for respondent No.2. Shri Manas Verma for respondent No.3. Shri M.P.Kapoor for respondent No.4. Petitioner was a student who was granted admission to the B.Ed CouRs.in the Academic Session 2007-08, and contending that the result of the petitioner is not being declared by the University, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that this is one of the case where the recognition and affiliation granted to the Institute in question i.e AadaRs.B.Ed College, Seoni, was cancelled; recognition was never granted to the Institute in question; and, the Institute without even grant of recognition admitted the students. The matter came to this Court and thereafter travelled to the Supreme Court in a SLP filed. The Supreme Court, in the SLP filed by most of the college...
Brijlal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
W.P.No.15539/2013 (Brijlal Patel versus State of MP and otheRs.18.09.2013 Heard Shri Vinot Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Akash Choudhary, learned P.L.for the State and Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 on caveat on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 24.08.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Koshtha to Gram Panchayat Khaira, Janpad Panchayat Rewa District Rewa. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also alleges violation of the other clauses of the policy. The learned counsel entering appearance on behalf of the respondent No.6 on caveat submits that the respondent No.6 has already joined her transferred place of posting and the order has been modified on the request of th...
Satyendra Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Criminal Appeal No.2286/2013 18/09/2013 Shri Anurag Prajapati, Advocate for the appellant. Heard. Admit. Shri Sameer Chille, GA accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State. Record of the court below be called for. Also heard on I.A.No.20688/13, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under section 25 (1B) (A) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year & fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of appellant till 20/09/2013. The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally, hence he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. 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 ...
V.P.Chawla Vs. M.P.State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No.889/2004 V.P. Chawla Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board & another ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Anil Khare, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri Jasmeet Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, for respondent No.2. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (18/09/2013) Seeking a direction against the respondents for payment of pension in appropriate manner in compliance of the order of the State Government, the petitioner, who was Ex Chairman of the M.P. State Electricity Board (herein after referred to as 'Board'), has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Brief facts are that the pet...
Aslam Khan Vs. Sharif Khan @ Bhura Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Criminal Revision No.13/2003. 18.9.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for respondent no.5-State. Arguments heard. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.10.2002 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No.306/99, whereby respondent nos.1 to 4 namely Sharif, Rakib, Latif and Shahid have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, whereas respondent Sharif was also acquitted of the offence under Section 307/34 and respondents Shahid and Raqib were also acquitted of the offence under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/07/1999, respondents in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of Faiyaj Khan. Respondent Sharif also ...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »