Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 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.
idrish Khan @ Bechen Vs. Mohammad Shahid Judgement Given By: Hon'ble S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
S.A.No.235/2013 15/01//2014 Shri Lal Gyanendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondent. This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the decree for eviction granted by the fiRs.appellate court reversing the findings given by the trial court. Respondent/plaintiff was the land lord and the appellant/defendant is a tenant in the suit premises. The suit in question was filed for eviction on the ground contemplated under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(h) of M.P.Accommodation Control Act,1961. Even though the trial court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish non compliance with the provisions pertaining to payment of rent and default by the plaintiff. When the matter was examined by the fiRs.appellate court, the fiRs.appellate court took note of the statement and admission made by the defendant, the present appellant i.e.defendant Idrish Khan...
Deendayal Goswami Vs. Smt. Malti Bai Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
S.A.NO.947/2011 15/01//2014 Shri J.K.Verma, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri T.S.Ruprah, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondents. This is defendants second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the trial court in the matter of decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff here in Smt. Malti Bai instituted the suit in question for declaration, partition and permanent injunction in respect of 1/3rd share of the agricultural lands bearing Survey No.32, area 5.49 hectare, survey No.36, area 0.99 hectare and Survey No.37, area 0.11 hectare, total area 6.59 hectares situated in village Khatauli, Tehsil Deori. That apart declaration was also sought with regard to plaintiff's share of 1/3rd in the house and Bada situated in village Jaitpur Kopra, Tehsil Deori. Plaintiff/respondent no.1 and defendant nos.1 and 2 namely appellants herein...
ZafaruddIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
1 Writ Petition No. 2213/2013 15.1.2014 Shri M.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent State. This petition is directed against the order dated 15.1.2013 passed by Collector in exercise of the powers under Section 47A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 confiscating the vehicle bearing registration No. MP 09 LP 0878 belonging to the petitioner. Respondents while entering appearance has filed response; whereby objection has been raised contending that against the order passed by Collector in exercise of power under Section 47A of Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 a statutory appeal is provided under Section 47B of the Act, 1915. Therefore, the present petition is not tenable in view of the availability of efficacious alternative remedy. Section 47B of Act, 1915 provides: "47B. Appeal against the or...
Ashok Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
1 Writ Petition No. 11158/2013 15.1.2014 Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Vandana Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for respondents on advance notice. Though the service on respondent No. 3, Jila Panchayat, Sehore is awaited; however, for the nature of order passed herein, no prejudice would be caused to them. PetitioneRs. employees of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd. on deputation to Janpad Panchayat Sehore vide this petition while seeking quashment of order dated 26.4.2013 further seek a direction to the respondents to extend them the benefit of V and VI Pay Commission in the light of decision rendered in Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan and another v. State of M.P. and others decided on 23.3.2011 in W.P. No. 5680/2009 (S) The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ...
Ku. Aasha Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-14-2014
Writ Petition No.17711/2013 24.1.2014. Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no.1- State, on advance notice. Heard. Petitioner contender for appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III seeks direction to the respondents to permit her to participate in the counselling as the petitioner had earlier passed the eligibility test in the year 2011. The counselling as apparent from the pleadings on record has been denied to the petitioner because she does not possess the requisite qualification i.e.Diploma in Education. The Rules which govern the appointment of Samvida Shala Shikshak are Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and Condition of Contract) Rules, 2005 framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred vide sub-Section (1) of Section 95 read with sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Sub-rule (4) o...
P.S. Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Cr.A.No.99/2014 13.01.2014 Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Standing Counsel for the Lokayukta. Heard on the question of admission. Having perused the impugned judgment, this appeal appears to be arguable, hence the same is admitted for final hearing. Respondent's counsel has taken notice of this admission, hence no further notice is required in this regard. Record of the trial court be requestioned within a month. Also heard on 588/14, appellant's application for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail as he has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 7, RI for two years with fine of Rs.5000 and under Section 13 (2) (D).RI for two years with fine of Rs.5000 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. As per available record after delivery of the impugned judgment and conviction awarded jail sentence has been suspended by the trial court upto 30.1.2014 to app...
Ram Sundar Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
W.P.No.21792/2013 Ram Sundar Yadav versus State of MP & ORS.13/01/2014 Shri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Petitioner is a Panchayat Coordination Officer and has filed this writ petition challenging the order of transfer Annexure-P6 dated 7.12.2013 mainly on the ground that he is a senior most employee and if there are surplus staff in the Panchayat in question and due to the financial crises constraint transfer of employees is required, the senior most employee cannot be transferred. Contending that the reasons given by the respondents are not sustainable, this petition is filed. The order impugned Annexure-P6 goes to show that various employees have been transferred from one Panchayat to another. The transfer order indicates that more that 41 employees working in various Panchayats have been transferred and the transfer has been effected on administrative consideration. The grounds raised by the ...
Balendra Shekhar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Give ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
1 M.Cr.C No.11774 of 2013 13.01.2014 Shri Pushpendra Dubey, counsel for the applicants. Shri Umesh Pandey, GA for respondent No.1/State. Shri Siddarth Tyagi and Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant Smt Sima Mishra. The applicants, namely, Balendra Shekhar Mishra, Shrinivas Mishra, Smt Leela Mishra and Ku. Aarti Mishra and the complainant Smt Sima Mishra are also present in person identified by their counsel. At the request of counsel of the parties, the case is taken-up out of its turn from the list of motion hearing cases. It being admitted petition vide order dated 9.12.13, in compliance of such order, is listed today for further consideration. On behalf of the applicants/ accused, this petition is preferred under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.13 passed by the JMFC, Bhopal passed in Regular Criminal Case No.16601/08, whereby the application filed with the joint signature of the applicants and respondent No.2 under section 32...
Mangal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2320/2012 Mangal Singh. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rajeev Barkur, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on the 13th day of January, 2014) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (for short Act.) vide judgment dated 12.9.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni in Criminal Case No.4577/2009 and sentenced with one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-. In Criminal Appeal No.206/2012 the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katni dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with both the judgments, the applicant has filed the present revisio...
Smt. Asha Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
1 Writ Petition No.21285 / 2013 13/1/2014 :- Shri Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. 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 c...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »