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.
Jaiwa Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
1 W.P. No. 4703 Of 2013 29.1.2014 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent State of M.P on advance notice. With consent of learned counsel for parties the matter is heard finally. Husband of petitioner, employed as Spot Assistant in Public Works Department, sub division, Khandwa on work charged contingency paid establishment died in harness on 11.10.2012. That, application was filed by the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was turned down on the ground that the ward of workmen engaged on workcharged contingency paid establishment are not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The rejection was on the basis of clause 12 (1) of the circular No. lh3/4/1/3/06 dated18.8.2008, which is in the following term:- dk;ZHkkfjr@vkdfLedrk ,oa nSfud oSr.Hkksfx;ksa gSr.izko/kku % 12-1 dk;ZHkkfjr@v...
Umesh Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
1 Cr. R. No.1525/2013. 29.1.2014. Shri N. K. Guleri, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Umesh Pandey, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. Heard on the question of admission. Having perused the impugned judgments, this revision appears to arguable, hence the same is admitted for final hearing. The State counsel has taken notice of this admission. Hence, no further notice is required. Before arguing the case on IA No.18348/13, applicant's application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, the applicant's counsel submits that keeping in view the circumstance that out of the awarded jail sentence of one year under Section 324 of IPC, the applicant has already suffered more than six months since the date of the impugned judgment i. e. 23.7.2013 and prayed to hear this revision on merits. State counsel did not have any objection in such hearing. In view of the aforesaid with the consent of the parties the revision is heard on merits. ORDER1 The applicant/ ...
Usman (D) Thr Lrs Smt. Khairun Nisha Vs. Fattulal Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
Second Appeal No.557 / 2012. 29/01/2014. Shri P.C.Paliwal, Advocate for the appellants / defendants. Heard on admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants / defendants against the judgment and decree dated 30/01/2012 passed in C.A.No.34-A/2010 by learned Second Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, District Balabhat, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17/11/2006 passed in C.S.No.25-A/2006 by learned Civil Judge Class-II, Waraseoni, District Balaghat, whereby suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff for vacant possession of the land by demolishing the house constructed in 0.0.16 hectare on the disputed land, has been decreed. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that the respondent / plaintiff is the owner and is having possession over the suit property and both the Courts below have not relied upon the sale deed Ex. D/1, on the basis of which, the appellants / defendants have claimed their tile over...
Suresh @ Gudda Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1368/2012 Suresh @ Gudda and others VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Pradeep Naveriya, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 28th day of January, 2014) The applicants have preferred the present revision against the order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the learned second Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S.T.No.79/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC were framed against the applicants.2. The prosecutions case, in short, is that, the deceased was resident of Bikhari Mohalla, Balaghat. It was alleged that the applicant No.1 was the regular visitor to the house of the deceased. On 23.11.2011, the de...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Purshottam Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice R ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
W.P.No.7326/2013 Suresh Kumar Tiwari versus Purshottam Tiwari & ORS.28/01/2014 Shri Ashok Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajeev Barkar, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging the order Annexure-P1 dated 12.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-Katni in Civil Appeal No.21/2010 rejecting an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC on the ground that the appeal has been filed after a period of more than 70 days, this writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petitioner/plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and engaged Late S.P.Sinha, Advocate. However, as Shri Sinha was bedridden, he could not appear in the court for about one year prior to 2010 and the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 19.4.2010. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for restoration of the suit, which was also dismissed and, therefore, the appeal was filed. However, there was a delay of more than 70 ...
Mahesh Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
M.Cr.C.No :: 17394 / 2013 Mahesh Sharma and another versus State of MP2801.2014. Shri Sankalp Kochar for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Crime No.593/2013 registered at P.S.Umariya, District Umariya for offence under sections 354, 509, 506, 294 and 323 r/w 34, of the IPC. The complainant has made a statement implicating both the petitioners with commission of the offence on the ground that while she was moving in the market they used unparliamentary language and tried to hold her hand. However, from the documents and material adduced, it is seen that against complainants father a criminal case has been registered at the instance of the petitioners and he is being prosecuted in Crime No.71/2012 for offence under sections 294, 323, 506-B/34 and 149 of the IPC. Apart from the father of the complainant, various other family members are implicated in commission of this offence against the petitioneRs.Certified copy of t...
Smt. Parveen Kachhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
- 1 -1 W.P.No.450/2013 28/1/2014 : Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner and one Smt. Chandrakala were candidates who were sought appointment on the post of Aanganwadi Sahayika to the Centre in question. Smt. Chandrakala was selected and petitioner was kept at Serial No.2. Petitioner challenged the selection of Smt. Chandrakala by filing an appeal before the Collector . Appeal was registered as appeal No.25-A-89/2009-10 and the Collector vide order dated 15.9.2010 disposed of the appeal directing the Project Officer to verify the mark sheet of Smt. Chandrakala and take action. When nothing was done and Smt. Chandrakala was granted appointment again on 24.11.2011, petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority and during the pendency of the appeal, Smt. Chandrakala expired on 28.9.2012. Petitioner therefore, moved an application seeking her appointment on the ground that she is the next e...
Vinayak Shiksha Samiti Katni Vs. National Council for Teacher Educatio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
W.P.No.13847/09 28.1.14 Shri A.M.Trivedi, Senior Advocate with Shri S.K.Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Heard, counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. This petition, essentially, takes exception to the order dated 6/11/09, whereby the request for grant of recognition to the petitioner-Institution to start College has been rejected. The two points which are urged before us, in our opinion, are sufficient to set aside the impugned order. Inasmuch as the impugned order makes no reference to the document submitted by the petitioner which rebuts the reason recorded in the order about non-appointment of staff selected by the Selection Committee. Secondly, the order has been passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner-Institution to clear the doubt entertained by the Authority about compliance of all requirements in terms of letter of intent dated...
Rahul Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
M.Cr.C.No.15957/2013 M.Cr.C.No.15957/2013 28.1.2014 Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms.Namrata Kesharwani, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, it appears that the trial Court has passed an order dated 21.11.2011, whereas he did not hear the parties for framing of the charges. On 16.1.2012, it was directed that the matter may be listed for arguments on framing of charges. Under such circumstances, it appears that the order dated 21.11.2011 is passed against the procedure given in the Cr.P.C.The charge-sheet is filed for offence punishable under Sections 294, 295 and 427 of IPC and looking to the sentence provided for these offences, the matter is a summons trial and therefore, the trial court could not pass an order in such a manner as it was passed. It appears that the trial Court converted the present case into a warrant trial and therefore, according to the provisio...
Leeladhar Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
W.P.Nos.852/08 & 2243/08 28.1.14 Shri Anoop Saxena, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri S.D.Tiwari, G.A.for the respondent-State. Heard, counsel for the parties. These petitions take exception to the Tender Invitation Process dated 24.4.07 (Annexure P/1) and Work Order dated 17.5.07 (Annexure P/2).Further relief has been claimed in the petitions to restore the possession of the petitioners on concerned land and to provide exemplary compensation to the petitioners for damages due to illegal action taken by the respondents. As regards fiRs.relief, the question is whether the petitioners can be permitted to challenge Tender Invitation Notice and Work Order referred to in the petitions. That Tender Invitation Notice and Work Order were issued by the Authorities for construction and maintenance of the Temple site after it was cleared by the concerned Authorities. Incidentally, it is alleged by the petitioners that during clearance action, structures possessed by the petitioners also came to b...