Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
W.A.No.1240 of 2011 W.A.No.1240 of 2011 W.A.No.1241 o25. 7.2012. Shri V.S.Shroti, Sr.counsel assisted by Shri Jitendra Shrivastava for the appellants. Shri Wajid Hyder for respondent No.1. This order shall decide the Writ Appeal No.1240/2011 and Writ Appeal No.1241/2011 in which controveRs.is identical and subsequent event in respect of settlement of the matter between the parties is also identical. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.A.No.1240/11 for the convenience. Shri Shroti, learned senior counsel submits that the claim of respondent No.1 has been settled and the application filed by the appellant u/s 14 of the Securitization Act before the District Magistrate has been withdrawn. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives in these appeals,but, he submits that the question involved in these appeals that whether a borrower is required an opportunity of hearing on filing an application u/s 14 of the Securitization Act before the District Magistrate, can be decided in this wr...
A.K.Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.10766/2012 25/7/2012: Shri P. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that against the impugned order dated 22.5.2009, petitioner has filed this writ petition and he has not exhausted the remedy of appeal. Even though the impugned order is passed in the year 2009 and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocated objected to maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of delay, but considering the fact that punishment in question which is with holding of two increments with not cumulative effect has a continuous effect of depriving the petitioner of his right to receive two increments and further taking note of the fact that it is only a question of deciding the appeal, I am not inclined to reject the petition on the ground of delay. Instead interest of justice would be met in case petitioner be granted opportunity to submit an appeal before the compe...
Rajendra Kumar Balle Vs. Smt. Mamta Dongre
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
FA No.486/12. 25.7.2012 Shri Mukesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. In the couRs.of arguments on I.A.No.5468/12, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC for grant of stay against operation and execution of the impugned money decree passed for damages/compensation, regarding death of husband of the respondent no.1, while the father of minot respondents No.2 to 4, the decree holders due to electrocaution on account of negligence on the part of the appellant as well as of respondent no.5 against such respondents by exonerating the respondents No.6 & 7, on making the query from the appellants counsel that in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the matter of M/s Mehta Teja Singh and Company versus Grindlays Bank Limited reported in (1982) 2 SCC 199.how the execution of the impugned money decree could be stayed on which, appellants counsel instead to argue further seeks permission to withdraw this I.A.Considering his pr...
Smt.Tara Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Smt. Tara Bai versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.11318 / 2012 (cr.) 25.7.2012: Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent State. Interalia contending that petitioner's daughter, who is aged more than 28 yeaRs.is illegally being detained by respondent No.7, this writ petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is seen that except for making bare allegation that petitioner's daughter is detained by respondent No.7, there is no material to show that offence under Section 366 of IPC are made out. Be that as it may be, on the facts and circumstances of the case, for the present, this Court does not seen any ground to interfere into the matter. Instead it is directed that on petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order before respondent No.5, Superintendent of Police, the said authority shall look into the matter and proceed in accordance to law. With the aforesai...
M/S S and S Constructions Th:its Prop. Samar Singh Gaur S/O G.S. Gaur ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.10091/12 W.P.No.10095/12 W.P.No.10097/12 W.P.No.10098/12 25.7.2012 Shri Sudhir K.Shrivastava, Counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondent No.1 Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent No.2. As controveRs.involved in these petitions- W.P.No.10091/12- M/s Unity Constructions versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., W.P.No.10095/12-M/s Shubhanjali Constructions versus versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., W.P.No.10097/12-M/s S & S Constructions versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation LTD.and W.P.No.10098/12- Arbee Contractors Pvt.LTD.versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., is identical and all the petitioners have received a notice from the respondent No.2 in respect of payment of service tax towards contract work performed by the petitioners with respondent No.1, all these cases are being decided by a common order. This order shall be applicable in all the petitions as far as it is applicable. Fact...
Govind Ram Khanduja Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
....1 W.A.No.1053 o25. 7.2012 Shri Greeshm Jain, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.for the respondents. It is submitted by Shri Jain that he has received a copy of the charge-sheet but still wants to make some contentions and submits that copy of the charge-sheet may also be directed to place on record. Shri Pandey submits that he shall be filing the copy of the charge-sheet on record within two working days. Shri Pandey also submits that it is the 4th petition in the case and earlier three petitions were disposed of by this Court so the record of all the writ petitions may be called. Shri Jain submits that he has stated all these facts in the petition and is ready to file copy of all the three earlier orders passed by this Court. List for hearing on 13.8.2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj...
Ashok Kumar Wasnik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.5105/2007 25/7/2012: Shri S.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Heard on I.A.No.8954/2012. This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking an interim direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the pensionary benefits in accordance to Rules pending finalization of this writ petition. Petitioner has been compulsorily retired under Rule 42 (1) (b) of M.P.Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the said compulsory retirement is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds in this writ petition. However, not grievance of the petitioner in I.A.No.8954/2012 is that in the garb of pendency of the writ petition, pensionary benefits and post retiral benefits are not being paid to the petitioner. Even though Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate sought time to seek instructions in the matter but I am of the considered view that mere pendency of the writ petition challenging the action taken u...
Gram Van Samiti Badagaon Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
WA 772/2012 25.7.2012 Shri D.K.Tripathi, Advocate for appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. Shri Manot Chansoriya, Advocate for respondent No.4. Looking to the controveRs.involved in the matter between appellant and respondent No.4, we direct learned counsel for the State to clarify the position that who was running the fair price shop of Gram Van Samiti, Badagaon before 10.5.2012 and whether any order was passed by the competent authority prior to 10.5.2012 in favour of appellant and subsequently in favour of respondent No.4 allotting the shop. Be listed for hearing on 6.8.2012. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for the State for compliance. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge amit...
M/S Unity Constructions Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development C ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.P.No.10091/12 W.P.No.10095/12 W.P.No.10097/12 W.P.No.10098/12 25.7.2012 Shri Sudhir K.Shrivastava, Counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondent No.1 Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, Counsel for respondent No.2. As controveRs.involved in these petitions- W.P.No.10091/12- M/s Unity Constructions versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., W.P.No.10095/12-M/s Shubhanjali Constructions versus versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., W.P.No.10097/12-M/s S & S Constructions versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation LTD.and W.P.No.10098/12- Arbee Contractors Pvt.LTD.versus M.P.State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., is identical and all the petitioners have received a notice from the respondent No.2 in respect of payment of service tax towards contract work performed by the petitioners with respondent No.1, all these cases are being decided by a common order. This order shall be applicable in all the petitions as far as it is applicable. Fact...
Shanti Prasad Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1 W.A.No.820/12 25.7.2012 Shri Amalpushp Shroti, Counsel for appellant. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that he has already made the defaults good which are pointed out by the office. In view of aforesaid, we have heard the appellant on admission of this appeal. Short contention of the appellant is that he was entitled for appointment on the post of Panchayat-Karmi because at his instance, appointment of respondent No.2 has been cancelled. The appellant was next to him in the merit list. It was submitted that the direction may be issued for appointment of the appellant. Considering aforesaid, we direct issuance of the notice to the respondents to show cause why this appeal be not admitted/finally disposed of. Notice on behalf of respondent No.2 is accepted by Shri Ankit Saxena, Advocate. Issue notice to other respondents. Steps within a period of one week by RAD. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge C....
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »