Madhya Pradesh Court October 2012 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.
Rajendra Dhandrey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
W.P.No.5347 o30. 10.2012 Shri R.L.Ariha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for respondent no.1. In view of listing the matter, IA No.11569/12, an application for early hearing does not require any consideration, hence the same is disposed of. I deem fit to hear this petition on the question of admission as well as interim relief after calling the records of subordinate authorities as well as appellate authority and the revisional authority, hence office is directed to call the records of all the aforesaid authorities by which orders Annexure P-1 to P-3 have been passed. Such exercise be carried out within three weeks and this matter be listed in the week commencing 10.12.2012 for admission and interim relief and subject to availability of time for final disposal. As an interim measure till next hearing the respondent No.1 is directed not to put the disputed vehicle on auction unless the order of this court, if the same has not been auction...
Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
W.P.No.18982 o30. 10.2012 None for the petitioner. Service report of the notices issued to respondent Nos.1, 3 and 6 has not been received back either served or unserved. Let the same be requisitioned through reminder within 15 days. Shri A. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.3. None for respondent Nos.4 and 5 although served. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv for respondent no.7. Counsel for respondent No.2 has pointed out that during the pendency of this petition the respondent No.5-Smt. Rakha Singh has passed away on dated 30.8.2012. Such fact is taken on record. The petitioneRs.counsel is extended a liberty to take appropriate steps in this regard within three weeks. Let this matter be listed for further orders in the week commencing 10.12.2012. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Surendra Sahu Vs. Inidan Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Writ Petition No.16410/12. 30.10.2012 Shri Sunil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned P.L.for the State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 29.6.2012 passed by Ist Additional District Judge Sehore in Misc. Civil Appeal No.09/2011, affirming the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by Additional Judge of Ichawar to the Court of Civil Judge Class-I Sehore whereby, her application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for issuing ad- interim injunction restraining the respondents to interfere in her possession of the disputed plot described in the plaint Annexure-P-1, was dismissed. Having heard the petitioners counsel keeping in view his argument, after perusing the papers placed on the record along with the plaint and the impugned order Annexure-P-2 of the trial Court and the order of the appellate Court Annex...
Anil Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Municipal Council,chhindwara and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 W.P No.212/1999 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.212/1999 PETITIONER : ANIL KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENTS : MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHINDWARA AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioners : Shri Ravish Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Amit Shahni and Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocates. For the respondent no.1 : Shri Devendra Gangrade, Advocate. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. ORDER (30/10/2012) The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the resolution and decision taken by the Town Improvement Trust, Chhindwara on 20.12.1993 and the consequent sale deed executed in favour of respondent nos.2 to 5, Annexures P-23 to 26. It is alleged that the dispute relates to absolute sale of the open chhat (terrace) of the shopping complex by respondent no.1 Municipal Council, Chhindwara to respondent nos.2 to 5 pursuant to a resolution of the Town Improvement Trust, Chhindwar...
M/S Krishna Trading Company Vs. Vyavisayik Evam Audhyogic Sahakari Ban ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR W.P.No.9106/2009 M/s Krishna Trading Company through Prop. Hanuman Prasad Bansal Son of Shri Bherolal Bansal aged 55 years, Occupation-presently unemployed r/o Pali Road, Sheopur Kala, district Sheopur (M.P.) ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Vyavasaik Evam Audhyogik Sahkari Bank Ltd. through Branch Manager Vyavasaik Evam Audhyogik Sahkari Bank Ltd. Branch Sheopur Kala distt. Sheopur (M.P.) 2. Vyavasaik Evam Audhyogik Sahkari Bank Ltd. through Authorised Officer, Vyavasaik Evam Audhyogik Sahkari Bank Ltd. Head Office, Sadar Bazar, Morena (M.P.) ......Respondents W.P.No.13795/2012 M/s Jagdamba Traders, through Prop. Shri Mohanlal Gupta, s/o Shri Gulaba Chand Gupta aged about.adult, r/o Balapura Mohalla Seopur kala district Sheopur (M.P.) .......Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.2. Vyavasaik Evam Audhyogik Sahkari Bank Ltd. through Branch Manager Vyavasaik Evam Audhy...
Sheikh Ibrahim Vs. Smt.Munni Devi and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
(1) F.A. No.615/2004 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava First Appeal No.615/2004 Appellant Sheikh Ibrahim S/o. Late Nannu Pahalwan, Resident of Ward No.5, Tehsil and District Chhatarpur (M.P.) Vs. Respondents:1. Smt. Munni Devi, widow of Basant Lal Pandey, resident of near Bihariji Temple, Chhattarpur, 2. Lakhan Lal, S/o Late Basant Lal Pandey, resident of near Bihariji Temple, Chhattarpur 3. Smt. Suman Devi, W/o Som Datt Tiwari, daughter of late Basant Lal Pandey, resident of near Railway Phatak, Jabalpur 4. Yogesh Kumar, S/o Lakhan Lal Pandey 5. Brijesh Kumar, S/o Lakhan Lal Pandey, 6. Madhao Prasad, S/o Kanhaiya Lal Pandey, 7. Ganesh Prasad, S/o Kanhaiya Lal (2) F.A. No.615/2004 Pandey, Respondents No.4, 5, 6 & 7 residents of near Biharilalji temple, Chhattarpur (M.P.) 8. Qayum Khan alias Munna, S/o Sadique Khan 9. Raju Khan, S/o Qayum Khanalias Munna Respondents no.8 and 9, both residents of near Biharilal Chaurasia, Jawa...
Riyaz Khan Vs. Anirudh Mukherjee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
Riyaz Khan versus Anirudh Mukherjee Con.C.No.1310/2009 30/10/2012 Shri Sanjay Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the non-applicant. In view of the reply filed by the non-applicant and the compliance reported, applicant may submit a requisite Application Form for grant of Employee Provident Fund (E.P.F.) amount in Form 10 D and get it forwarded to the office of Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund for necessary payments. The non-applicant shall ensure that the necessary formalities be completed from their office. As far as remaining claim is concerned, the same is disputed. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the applicant to raise the claim under Section 36 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes and Payment Act. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, this application is disposed of and the non-applicant is discharged from the proceedings. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
M/S Enbee Plantation Ltd. Vs. Utkarsh Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
M/s Embee Plantation Limited / Applicant Comp.Pt.No.03/2003 30/10/2012 Parties as before. An application has been filed by the Company concerned on 29.10.2012, which goes to indicate that a sum of ` 50 Lacs have been deposited in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on the earlier occasion. That being so, the amount to various interveneRs.which has not been disbursed due to the want of fund be disbursed in accordance with the order passed on 4.11.2011. It is reported that some of the interveners have received the amount and part compliance of the order dated 4.11.2011 has been done. not the remaining interveneRs.in whose cases amount has not been disbursed, be paid the amount as already ordered on 4.11.2011. As far as the remaining applications for release of the amount are concerned, interveners are directed to submit a copy of the application before the concerned Court Commissioner and the report be submitted to this Court on or before 29.11.2012. The amount of ` 50 Lacs depos...
Ramanand Vs. Jaivant @ Jaimaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 W.P.No.1170/10. 30.10.2012. Shri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The name of respondent No.1 is mentioned as dead person. Shri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned GA for the respondent No.4. Instead to hear this petition on the question of admission as well as IA No.1087/10, an application for ad interim writ with the consent of the parties same is heard finally. ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 28.7.2009 (Ann. P.1) passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-I Churhat in Co.No.261-A/03 whereby his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the plaint, on some subsequent events happened after filing the suit has been dismissed. Having heard the parties, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record including the plaint (Ann. P.2).written statement filed by the principal defendant No.1 Ramnath (Ann...
Yogesh Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
1 W.P.No.16882/12. 30.10.2012. Shri V.D.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned GA for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to decide his claim and issue bit pass for mining with respect of the impugned lease land. In the couRs.of the arguments, I have found that representation of the petitioner Annexure P-10 with respect of the dispute is pending in the office of the authorities of the respondent No.4. Hence, instead to admit or issue any notice to the other side, so also without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider and decide the aforesaid pending representation of the petitioner (Ann.P.10) by speaking order within ninety days from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order along...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »