Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
indrapuri Asha Shiksha Samiti Vs. National Council for Teacher Educati ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
W.P.No.2812/2013 17.02.2014 Shri S.K.Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1, at the outset, submits that on 29/1/2014 respondent No.1 has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for de-recognition. It is further submitted that after receiving reply of the petitioner a decision is to be taken by respondent No.1, then it will be only prospective not retrospective, so the de-recognition of the petitioner, if any, shall be prospective for the next session, till then the petitioner-institution shall be treated as recognized as per order dated 10/1/2014. In view of aforesaid statement made by Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1, nothing survive in this petition to be decided. The petitioner, if feels aggrieved by any decision on the show...
The State of M.P. and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Pandey and Ors. Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
W.P.No.553/1997 17.02.2014 Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner. Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for respondents No.1,4,5,7,9,10, 12, 13 and 15. Shri A.S.Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No.6(A) and 6(B).Shri Amit Burrok, learned counsel on behalf of L.Rs of deceased respondent No.10. Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the intervener. The petition is listed for non-compliance of order dated 13.3.2013. The petitioner-State was required to pay the process for issuance of notices of this writ petition to the unserved respondents No.2(3).3(1).3(2) and 3(4) respectively by registered A.D.It is contended that though process was paid on number of times, however, the notices of the writ petition could not be served on the aforesaid respondents because of non- availability of their correct address. In view of this, learned Deputy Advocate General made a prayer that he may be allowed to serve the unrepresented respondents by publication of the notices...
Shambhoolal Yadav Vs. Smt. Ramkali Yadav Judgement Given By: Hon'ble S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
M.C.C.No.908/2013 17.2.2014 Shri Sankalp Sanghi, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent though served. This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed seeking transfer of Misc. Civil Case No.50/2012, filed in the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Jabalpur, by the applicant, on the ground that the respondent being legally married wife of the applicant has deserted the applicant and has moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court for grant of maintenance. There were disputes between the parties and, therefore, a threat was given to the applicant. Feeling that any assault may be committed on the applicant if he visits Jabalpur, he has already lodged a complaint in the Police Station Kotwali, District Dindori, with respect to such a fact. It is alleged that the son of the applicant has died in suspicious circumstances, and the cause of death is because of the ill- treatment of the respon...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Arti Gupta Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
W.A.No.1318/2010 17.02.2014 Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants. Shri Rajeev Barkur, Advocate appears on behalf of R.K.Asati, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.14116/2010, which is an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, I.A.No.14116/2010 is allowed and the delay is condoned. Also heard on the question of admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 6/7/2009 passed in Writ Petition No.7111/2008 (S) by which the Writ Court directed to count teaching experience of the respondent as per Clause-7 of the Scheme subject to verification by the appellants, herein, about the authenticity of the documents on the basis of which the benefit is sought. The aforesaid direction which has been sought by the respondent, under Clause-7 of the Scheme, has been quoted in the impugned order. We do not find any error in the impugned order warranting an interference. Accordin...
Arun Pal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
1 W.A.No.150/2014 Arun Pal Singh State of M.P.& others 17.2.2014 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, Counsel for appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 16.1.2014 passed in W.P.No.21486/13(s) by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. Short grievance of the appellant is that the appellant had filed a writ petition against the transfer order Annexure P/1 dated 12.7.2012 before this Court which was disposed of finally by an order dated 1.2.2013 in W.P.No.1346/2013 by which this Court directed thus:- In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to Collector with a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and the Collector is directed to consider and decide the said representation which may be submitted by...
Vishwantah Garodia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Reve ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
W.P.No.20795/2012 17.02.2014 Shri Radhelal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents-State. In terms of direction already issued by this Court on earlier occasion, though no return has been filed, but it is fairly contended by learned Govt. Advocate that the matter can be heard finally. The controveRs.involved in the present writ petition against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division Jabalpur on 19.11.2012, is that when the order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the Collector Katni in exercise of power under Section 51 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code of brevity) was sought to be challenged, the Additional Commissioner completely failed to appreciate the proviso prescribed under the said Section and though it was found that the sanction from the Board of Revenue was not obtained by the subsequent officer, but the review of the original order dated 13.10.2008 was order...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Shobha Singh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
....1 W.A.No.771 of 2011 State of M.P.& otheRs.Smt. Shobha Singh 17.02.2014 Shri P Dharmadhikari, G.A.for the appellants. Shri Sanjay Verma, Counsel for the respondent. This petition is directed against an order dated 28.10.2010 passed in W.P.No.8847/2006(s) by which a writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed and the impugned order Annexure P-13 dated 10.5.2007 was quashed. This order has been assailed by the appellants on the following grounds :- 1. That no undertaking was filed by the respondent inspite of the specific order issued by the State Government. 2. That other three co-employees to whom the order Annexure P-13 was issued, they had filed undertaking. Their matters are still pending before the High Court so this appeal may be admitted on the aforesaid grounds. From the perusal of the record, we find that vide order Annexure R-5 a decision was taken by the Chief Engineer to refer the matter to the State Government on 8.3.2006 for final decision but till date no fi...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Brij Kishore Chaturvedi Judgement Give ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
WRIT PETITION No.11321/2012 1 17.02.2014 Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioneRs.This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30.11.2011 passed in Case No.7/2011 I.D.Act by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Satna. It is contended that there was no justified reason to show that the respondent was entitled to any payment of arrears of salary amounting to Rs.2,39,810/- and, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court was bad in law. It is contended that the evidence to this effect adduced by the respondent was not sufficient and, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. In fact the respondent approached the Labour Court by way of filing an application against his removal from service. The matter was referred to the Labour Court and was registered as Case No.30/I.D.Act/Reference/2002. The statements of claims were filed by the respective parties, i.e.the petitioners herein and the respondent, ...
Vishnu Mishra Vs. Smt. Seeta Trivedi Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
1 MCC No.255/2014 17/2/2014 Shri R.L.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transferring Regular Civil Suit No.36A/2012 pending before the Family Court, Bhopal at the instance of respondent wife. Applicant and respondent-wife were married at Rewa on 4th May, 1999 and it is said that they live together at Rewa for some time and thereafter, the non applicant went to Bhopal for studying in BHMS CouRs.and came to Rewa and thereafter, stayed with her parents at Rewa for some time where a male child was also born. Thereafter, she has started living at Bhopal and has filed a proceeding under Section 125 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court at Bhopal. Contending that the non applicant has filed the case at Bhopal only to harass the applicant, she is resident of Rewa, her parents are also staying in Rewa and she has initiated the proceedings at Bhopal only to harass the applicant, this application is f...
Sagar Bihariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
1 Cr.R.No.301/2014 17/2/2014 Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondent State on advance notice. This revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the charges registered against the applicant. At the instance of the prosecutrix who was also studying with the present petitioner in MBA Final Year at a institute in Bhopal, a complaint was registered and after investigation into the Crime which was registered as Crime No.213/2013, offences under Section 366, 323, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tripe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been registered and charges framed. Copy of FIR is Annexure P/4. Learned counsel argues that charges have been incorrectly framed, no offence is made out based on the allegation leveled in the FIR or the evidence collected. It is said that the applicant and prosecutrix were having good acquittance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »