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.
Hafeez Naseer Vs. Masood Naseer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
1 W.P.No.16394/13. 26.9.2013. Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.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 30.7.2013, passed by 13th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in M.C.A. No.184/12 affirming the order dated 9.10.2012 (Ann. P.4).passed by the 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Class-II to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal in Co.No.379-A/12, whereby their application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of r/w Section 151 of CPC for issuing ad-interim injunction against the respondents restraining them to interfere in their possession of the disputed property has been dismissed. Initially the case was argued at length for admission and allowing this petition but in response of some query, the petitioner's counsel restricted his arguments and prayed to pass appropriate order to protect the interest of petitioners by restraining the r...
Satya Deo Bharti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Writ Petition No.16252/2013 (S) 27/09/2013 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents. It appears that the petitioner is claiming the similar benefits as were extended by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior in W.A.No.225/2007 (Devi Charan Jha and another versus The State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 17.12.2008. It is contended that appeal against the said decision was preferred before the Apex Court, but the SLP was dismissed. The Division Bench of this Court has decided the appeal in the following manner :- 1. Appellants are free to accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the VRS Scheme of 2005. 2. If any government department or its instrumentality is willing to take the appellants or any employee of the corporation on deputation, the corporation will issue no objection certificate in their favour as have been done in the case of other employees. 3. So far as the question of absorption in the G...
Jyoti Mehta Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
CONC No.1762/2012 Jyoti Mehta & Ors. vs. Shri Sanjay Singh & ANo.1 27.09.2013 Shri Neeraj Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.597/2011 dated 20.8.2013 and modified by order dated 4.9.2013 has passed the following directions:- (a) The appellants are allowed to make payment of arrears which have fallen due to the respondent as per order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the State Government by which it was ordered by the School Education Department that all the respondents be paid arrears from 1.4.2000 to 9.12.2010 as per 5th Pay Commission but to the extent of 50% and the aforesaid payment shall be subject to the decision in the pending SLP and present writ appeal. (b) The instalments fallen due in 2012-13, i.e., two instalments, shall be paid by the appellants to all the teachers who have not been paid the arrears in compliance of the orde...
Shankarlal Nath Vs. Registrar Public Trust Gotegaon
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
1 W.P No.9968 of 2012 27.9.2013 Shri Ajay S. Raizada, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for respondent No.1, although in the available circumstances presence of respondent No.1 is not required to adjudicate this petition.. Shri S.S.Gada and Shri D.K.Soni, counsel for respondent No.6. In the available circumstances, presence of respondent No.2 to 5 being existing plaintiffs in the suit before the trial court, is not required to adjudicate this petition consequently, the notice of this petition against them are hereby dispensed with. Instead to hear this petition on the question of admission, with the consent of the parties, the same is heard for final disposal at motion stage. ORDER (oral) 2. The petitioners, as alleged the trustees of the impugned trust and the defendant before the trial court, have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 19.6.12 Annex.P/6 passed by the Ist ADJ, Narsingpur in MJC No.31/07,...
Saukhilal Mishra Vs. Kaushal Prasad Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
1 W.P.No.16385/2013. 26.9.2013. Shri J.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned G.A.for respondent No.3/ State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.defendant No.1, 3 and 4 have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 2.9.2013, passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-I, Satna in C.S.No.54-A/12, whereby allowing the application of the respondent No.1/ plaintiff filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act he has been permitted to prove the alleged partition deed dated 18.11.1962 by way of secondary evidence through photo copy placed by him in support of the plaint on record. Shri J.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners after taking me through the averments of the petition along with the papers placed on record and the impugned order by referring the case of coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Aneeta Rajpoot (Smt.) versus Smt. Saraswati Gupta re...
Smt. Lalita Bai Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
CONC No.2025/2013 Smt. Lalita Bai vs. Shri Sanjay Singh & ANo.1 27.09.2013 Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.597/2011 dated 20.8.2013 and modified by order dated 4.9.2013 has passed the following directions:- (a) The appellants are allowed to make payment of arrears which have fallen due to the respondent as per order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the State Government by which it was ordered by the School Education Department that all the respondents be paid arrears from 1.4.2000 to 9.12.2010 as per 5th Pay Commission but to the extent of 50% and the aforesaid payment shall be subject to the decision in the pending SLP and present writ appeal. (b) The instalments fallen due in 2012-13, i.e., two instalments, shall be paid by the appellants to all the teachers who have not been paid the arrears in compliance of the order dat...
Smt. Nirmala Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16155/2013 1 27.09.2013 Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentio...
Smt. Naseem Bano Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
W.P.No.16197/2013 27.09.2012 Shri Pradeep Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. 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 Court has further disposed of certain writ petiti...
Bharti Tomar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16393/2013 1 27.09.2013 Shri Rakesh Chourasia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The complaint made by the petitioner is that no action is being taken by the respondents-authorities against one Pushpa Devi. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondents-authorities to investigate into the matter and to register a case against the aforesaid lady. The reliefs are claimed on the basis of aforesaid pleadings. The issue is to be looked into by the respondents- authorities and in case a complaint is made with respect to registration of offence and no action is taken by the authorities, it is open to the complainant, petitioner in the present case, to lodge a complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a Magistrate. In the case of Aleque Padamsee and others versus Union of India and otheRs.(2007)...
Daddi Baisa Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.132 OF1998Daddi Baiga Son of Late Shri Goli Baiga, Aged about 35 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o Village-Beharde, Police Station- Norojabad, Tehsil, Bandhavgarh, District-Shahdol (MP) APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh RESPONDENT Shri Umakant Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri R.K.Patel, Advocate for appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for respondent /State. Judgment Reserved on :26. 07.13 Judgment Delivered on :27. 09.13 JUDGMENT Appellant Daddi Baiga has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, District-Shahdol, in Session Trial No.134/97 (State of M.P. vs. Daddi Baiga), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) of IPC and awarded a punishment of rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »