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.
Om Prakash Kori Vs. General Manager,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
R.P.No.617/2013 (Om Prakash Kori versus S.E.C.L & Ors.) 27.09.2013 Shri U.K.Sharma, learned Senior Counsel with Shri R.K.Patel for the applicant. Shri Rajas Pohankar learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The applicant has filed this application seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.11111/2013 dated 12.7.2013. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the petitioner had appeared before this Court in person when the aforesaid petition was heard but could not place all the facts before this Court which resulted in dismissal of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to avail of the alternative statutory remedy available to him. It is submitted that in fact the present case is one where the applicant has been served with a charge sheet and has been suspended by order dated 8/9.6.2013 and an enquiry against him has also been directed to be conducted by order dated 16/17.6.2013 on the alleged ground of...
Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3825/2013 27.09.2013 Shri R.P.Singh, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to quash the FIR registered at Police Station Rampur Baghelan, District Satna at Crime No.671/11, whereby an FIR was lodged by Ganesh Prasad Dwivedi S/o Bala Prasad Dwivedi against four persons including the applicant that the accused persons robbed him. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a disciplinary action was taken against Bala Prasad, who was working in the Co-operative Society at village Daldal and therefore, a false FIR was lodged by son of Bala Prasad Dwivedi. The applicant has submitted various documents to show about the stern action against father of the complainant. Also the affidavits of Vanshpati, Ramdas Singh and Mathura etc.were submitted to show that a false case has been registered against the applicant. It ...
Dhanna Lal Rathwe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16339/2013 1 27.09.2013 Shri Amit Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners have 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 m...
Kailash Chandra Meena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
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,...
Asharam KaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.2381/2008 Asharam Kain Vs. State of M.P. & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (27.09.2013) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to fix the pension of the petitioner, taking into account the full length of service of the petitioner in terms of the circular issued by the State Government. It is contended that the petitioner, who was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Auditor, Insurance and Local Accounts Audit, Bhopal, has given a notice for his voluntary retirement in terms of the circular ...
Gyanendra Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.15870/2013 1 27.09.2013 Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction against the respondents to cancel the promotion of respondent No.7. It is contended that a complaint was made with respect to illegal promotion of respondent No.7 before the Lokayukt but since such a complaint is not inquired into nor any action is taken, this writ petition is required to be filed. The petitioner, according to his own showing, is only a citizen of India and has certain fundamental rights but he has no connection with the services. It is contended in the petition that the respondent No.7 though is promoted along with others on the basis of his seniority but since he has not qualified in the particular subject in which he has been promo...
Rambharose Singraha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
Writ Petition No.16318/2013 (S) 27/09/2013 Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner No.1 and L.R.of deceased petitioner No.2 (the wife) claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner No.1 and L.R.of deceased petitioner No.2 (the wife) in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioner therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by ...
Sushil Kumar Nath Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
CONC No.2028/2013 Sushil Kumar Nath & Ors. vs. Shri Sanjay Singh & ANo.1 27.09.2013 Shri Vinod Mishra, 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...
Prabhakar Kaple Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.15970/2013 1 27.09.2013 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior in W.P.No.5680/2009 (S).Dinkar Pratap Singh Chauhan & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 23.03.2011. It is further contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the aforesaid Bench was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior in W.A.No.361/2011, State of M.P.& others versus Dinkar Pratap Singh Chauhan & otheRs.by which the appeal filed by the State against the order of learned Single Judge was dismissed. It is further contended that the State Government preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, which too has been dismissed and, therefore, the order passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in the writ...
Rajiv Chourasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.9996/2005 Rajiv Chourasiya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Ms. Versha Kothari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 26th day of September, 2013) The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhatarpur in Criminal Revision No.149/05, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed.2. The facts of the case, in short are that, on 3.4.2004 at the forest check-pos...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »