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.
Lalji and ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.894 /1996 Lalji & 2 Others Vs. Deepak Kumar & 2 Others Counsel for the appellants : Shri M.L. Jaiswal, Senior counsel with Shri K.K.Gautam, Advocate. Counsel for the respondents : Shri Adil Usmani, Advocate. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (09.10.2 012) This appeal is by the defendants, which was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the first appellate Court was justified in granting a decree for ejectment on the ground of Section 12 (1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act even when the entire rent was deposited and application for extension of time/condonation of delay, was filed before the appellate Court?.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that he is owner of suit shop which was let out to defendants on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- on...
Maheshwari Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
W.P.No.17376/2012 09.10.2012 Shri R.L.Gupta and Shri N.P.Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned P.L.for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Having heard on the question of admission after perusing the papers placed on record alongwith the petition in view of the order passed on dated 25.9.2012 passed in W.P.No.16011/2012, (Ann. P-6) in which similar question is involved, it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days notice against admission as well as of interim relief, returnable within six weeks be issued to the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Let this matter be listed immediately after receiving the service report of said notices for admission and consideration of interim relief. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition, the operation of the impugned order Ann. P-2 passed by the respondent no....
Vivek Bhamore Vs. Authorised Officer, Chief Manager, State Bank of Ind ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
W.P.No.16710 o9. 10.2012 Shri Sourabh Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Before hearing the counsel on the question of admission, in the available circumstances of the matter on making query from the counsel that in pendency of the review petition before the DRT with respect of the subject matter raised in this petition, how the same could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on which the petitioner's counsel submits that subsequent to filing this petition, he has filed IA No.13248/12 for taking some additional documents on record and according to such document if this petition is not heard and interim order is not passed, then the petitioner has to suffer a lot and prayed to hear on the aforesaid IA. Considering such prayer IA No.13248/12 is taken for consideration. Having heard, for the reasons stated in the IA, by allowing the same, the annexed document is taken on record. Again on asking the petitioner's counsel that in view of pendency of aforesa...
M/S Eurobond Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. the Excutive Enginer (O and M)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Writ Petition No.14607/12(O) 9.10.2012 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vineet Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned P.L.for the State-respondent no.3. The presence of respondent no.2 is not required for adjudication of this petition. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with impugned order 30.5.2012, argued that appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by the subordinate appellate authority under the wrong premises by dismissing his application filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for exclusion of the period which has been spent by the petitioner under the bonafide advise before the wrong Forum. In support of his arguments, he placed his reliance on Section 176(u).126(1) of the Electricity Act 2003 and also sub-Section 2 of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1963. In the light of such provisions, he argued that the provision of Li...
Rajkaran Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.21848/2011(S) Rajkaran Singh. versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents. ORDER (09.10.2012) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension by an order dated 6.2.2007, owing to filign of a challan in the Court of Special Judge, Rewa, for commission of offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation, therefore, the said suspension order was revoked on 29.4.2008. The petitioner superannuated from the services on 30.4.2010. The pension case of the petitioner was prepared, but only a provisional pension was paid to him. In the Criminal case, the petitioner was convicted for commission of the aforesaid act read with Section 13(1)(d) 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption ...
Suresh Kocher Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
WA No.464 of 2010. 9.10.2012. Shri Akash Choudhary for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for the respondents No.1 to 6. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Sr.counsel with Shri Sankalp Kochar for the respondent No.7. This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.4.2010 in W.P.No.1821/2010 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the appellant had challenged a notification dated 3.5.2006 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh u/s 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1984, whereby a development plan for District Balaghat was notified. This order was assailed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main issue of the appellant is in respect of a Tank known as 'Devi Talab' and contention of the appellant before the single Bench was that the 'land use' of such Tank was wrongly changed. The learned Single Judge considering the earlier orders passed by the High Court, Division Bench and by th...
Jagdish Singh Thakur Vs. M.P.Road Transport Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
WRIT PETITION No.10025/2007 (S09. 10.2012 Shri K.N.Pethia, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents though served and earlier represented. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the controveRs.involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Soni & others versus M.P.Road Transport Corporation & another, W.A.No.378/2006 and other analogous writ appeals decided on 20.07.2007. It is contended that on earlier occasion the writ petitions were filed challenging the act of not reinstating the persons like petitioner after permitting them to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement. Such writ petitions were dismissed and the writ appeals were filed by the said persons. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the law laid-down by the Apex Court in various cases has held thus : 14. From the aforesaid enunciation of law there is no scintilla of doubt tha...
Satyanarayan Vs. Pasu Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.287 /1996 Satyanaraya n Vs. Pusu Lal (through Legal Representatives) Counsel for the appellant : Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate. Counsel for the respondents : Shri K.B. Bhatnagar, Advocate. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (09.10.2 012) This appeal is by the defendants, who have lost in both the courts below. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case could the appellant be evicted from the suit premises without there being legal notice u/s. 106 T.P. Act. ?.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the court below was justified in disbelieving the agreement Ex. D-1 according to which the plaintiff's father had purchased the suit premises ?..2. The facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff is the owner of Kachcha house situate on plot No.290 admeasuring area...
Sudama Prasad Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1 W.P.No.15523/2012 (O) 9.10.2012. Shri R.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned GA for the respondents No.3, 4 and 5, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned demand notice dated 8.6.2012 (Ann. P.2).In addition to it, the prayer to issue appropriate direction to the respondent No.2 not to install the impugned pole/ tower of 400 KV Nigri Satna High Tension Electricity Line on the land of the petitioner. Having heard in the available scenario of the matter instead to admit or issue any notice to the other side, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 and 4 to consider and decide the pending representation Annexure P.4 and P.5, filed in the shape of complaint and application of the petitioner by speaking order under intimation to him withi...
Ranjeet Jha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
M.Cr.C.No.8858/2012 8/10/2012 Shri L.G.S.Baghel, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 12/02/12 in connection with Crime No.116/12 registered at P.S.Katni, District Katni for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 and 304-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that during trial as many as seven witnesses already been examined but none of them supported the prosecution case. Trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the statements of witnesses recorded before the trial Court, I am of the considered view that i...
- ‹ Prev
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- Next ›
- Last »