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.
T.P.Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
WP No.2004/2014 11/02/2014 Shri Rajiv Nayan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24.4.2013 by which the petitioner is placed under suspension on account of his involvement in a trap case. It is contended that after arrest of the petitioner in the said case, though he has been enlarged on bail, but has been placed under suspension and attached in the police line. No charge sheet whatsoever has been issued to the petitioner nor any criminal case is launched against him. Therefore, his suspension is illegal. It is contended that in similar circumstances the Superintendent of Police, Raisen has reinstated one head constable, but similar treatment is not extended to the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition is required to be filed. Suspension of a police officer is...
Betulal Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
W.P.No.4738/2012 11.02.2014 Shri Piyush Jain, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. We deprecate the casual approach of the petitioners in not filing the documents well within time if they wanted to do so, in the wake of clear order passed on 27.01.2014 that no further adjournment will be granted. By way of indulgence, however, we defer hearing of this matter till 9.4.2014. After the aforesaid order was dictated, counsel for the petitioners requested the Court to take up the petition for hearing today itself on the available/filed record. Accordingly, we proceeded to hear the arguments of the parties. This petition has been filed as public interest litigation challenging the orders passed by the State Authorities dated 22nd December, 2010 (Annexure P-1) and dated 30th September, 2011 (Annexure P-8).The order passed by the Board of Revenue at Gwalior, M.P.(Annexure P-1) is, indisputably, in relation to the proceedings under the ...
Pradeep Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By:
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
W.P.No.7425/2013 11.02.2014 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Diwakar, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Heard counsel for the parties on grant of interim relief. The writ-petitioners are seeking stay of operation of the Notification dated 30th March, 2013 whereby Rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules 1996 has been amended thereby restricting the sale of foreign liquor to consumers in sealed bottles in respect of licence of F.L.-1- AAAA. The argument before us is that the amendment to the said Rule has been effected to overturn the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1728/2013 (Som Distilleries and Breweries Limited versus State of M.P.and otheRs.dated 19th March, 2013. Prima facie, we are not impressed with this argument. For, the issue before the Division Bench in the said case was in the context of policy formulated by the State Government, which was an executive a...
Smt. Krishan Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
1 W.P.No.2395/2014 11/2/2014: Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General, on advance notice for respondents/State. Petitioners are challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o. Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.in W.P.No.6773/06, decided on 26/04/2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being W.P.No.5756/08(s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya & Others versus State of M.P.& OtheRs.decided on 26/05/2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (Supra) the directions given is as under: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Krammonati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983, 19/04/...
Smt. Vineeta Vs. Smt. Rukmani Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
W.P.No.20199/2011 Smt. Vineeta versus Smt. Rukmani & ORS.11/02/2014 Shri Mukesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was a candidate, who had applied for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karya Karta in a Centre situated in Village-Bhidki, Tahsil-Shahdol, District- Jabalpur. Petitioner was appointed and Respondent No.1 challenged the appointment of the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector. However, the Additional Collector dismissed the appeal and a Second Appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner and while the matter was so pending, on an application filed by Respondent No.1 under the Right to Information Act, the competent authority informed Respondent No.1 that the Domicile Certificate and the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner is not issued by the Tahsildar concerned. Based on the aforesaid, the Additional Commissioner cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and, therefore, this writ petition. From the docum...
Smt. Phoolkali Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
- 1 -1 M.Cr.C.No.527/2014 11/2/2014 : Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent State. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.challenging the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi rejecting an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C.and refusing to release avehicle on Supurtnama. Applicant is owner of a vehicle having registration number MP-53 GA/0737 (TATA407. It is said that the vehicle was used for commission of an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and has been taken into custody. Seeking release of the vehicle an application filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C.having been rejected, this application has been filed. Learned counsel brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 6.12.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.15042/2013 - Hardev Narayan Singh versus State of M.P.and another in somewhat similar situation wherein the vehicle was released on Supurt...
Satyadev Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :129. OF2010Satyadev Mishra & Anr. - V/s - State of MP & Ors. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. ORDER (11/02/2014) As per Rajendra Menon, J :- Petitioners were working in the Vidya Niketan Higher Secondary School, Bhadra Colliery District-Anuppur and challenging the action of the respondents in not absorbing the services of the petitioners after the school in question was taken over, petitioners have filed this writ petition.2. A society by name Vidya Niketan Education Society has established the school in question. The school was receiving full grant-in-aid from the State Government and grant was paid to the institute on the basis of the sanctioned staff accorded by the Government. Petitioners were a...
Nanni Bai Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
W.P.No.2008/2014 (Nanni Bai and others versus Smt. Geeta Devi others ) 10.02.2014 Shri D.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 01.10.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision Case No.22-2/2008 whereby the matter has been remitted back to the Tahsildar, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur for re- adjudication in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the remand by the trial court is contrary to law as the Board of Revenue was required to decide the matter on merits taking into consideration the rival claims of the parties regarding mutation of their names in the disputed property. It is submitted that the proceedings before the civil court have no bearing on the proceedings before the revenue court and in such circumstances, the impugned order is bad in law and suffers from the...
Mukat Singh Vs. Central Bank of India Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
W.P.No.1953/2014 10.02.2014 Shri B.N.Sharma Advocate and Shri Praveen Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.2.2013 on account of a criminal prosecution, under the provisions of Central Bank of India OfficeRs.Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations for brevity).It is contended that after the suspension, the petitioner made representations before the respondents, but the same are not being considered, therefore, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is contended that a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has considered the provisions of the Regulations aforesaid and has held that such a representation if made, is required to be decided by the respondents. Relying on the said decision a Single Bench of this Court at Gwalior has also disposed of a similar petition of some other employee of the very sa...
Narayan Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
W.P.No.7724/2013 10.02.2014 Shri Rajeev Barkur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner alleging that he is being harassed by respondents No.6 and 7 in collusion with respondent No.5, has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :- (i) To command the S.P.Jabalpur by a writ of mandamus to enquire entire matter through some independent Officer and submit report before the Hon'ble Court. (ii) To command the respondent No.1 and 2 to enquire the acts of the respondent No.5 on the instigation of respondent No.6 and 7 and restrain him to fiRs.afford an opportunity of hearing in presence of Counsel of the petitioner and then only take any action on the complaints of respondent No.6 and 7. (iii) and also issue any other writ/order/direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that there is a dispute in between...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »