Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Roop Singh Vs. Prem Nagar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
1 First Appeal No. 540/2010 28.8.2012 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri K.N. Fakhruddin, learned counsel for Shri V.K. Gyanani, Advocate. Heard. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against judgment and decree dated 14.9.2011 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 124A/2000. There is a delay of 3123 days (about 8.5 years).Taking note of allegations in paragraph 3 of the application for condonation of delay that, the appellant had engaged Shri V.K. Gyanani as his counsel in the trial court, who continuously assured him that the suit cannot be decreed and was continuously in his touch and ultimately when he came to know about the judgment and decree he has filed this appeal; notices were caused on Shri V.K. Gyanani, Advocate as to why i...
Jagdish Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Cr.A.No.1397/2012 28.08.2012 Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the complainant Phoolrani. Heard on IA No.17782/12 and IA No.17783/12, applications relating to compromise for seeking permission and to record the compromise. Today complainant Phoolrani was sent before the Registrar Judicial (I) to observe her voluntariness to do compromise. Registrar Judicial (I) has informed that the complainant is willing and she has compounded the offence with free consent. The compromise was also recorded by the Registrar Judicial (I).The appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 325 or 325/34 of IPC which is compoundable. Under such circumstances, looking to the voluntariness of the complainant, she is permitted to do compromise with the appellants. Compromise filed by the parties, which is duly signed by learned counsel for the appellants is considered. Since the offences are compoundab...
Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Phool Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
M.A.No.4797/2011 28.8.2012. Shri T.S.Lamba, Advocate for appellant/Insurer. Ms.Aparna Singh, Advocate for respondents 1 to 4/ claimants. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties at motion stage. ORDER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ Insurer aggrieved by award dated 26.7.2011 passed by 3rd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court).Katni in Claim Case No.78/2010 whereby an award of Rs.8,36,000/- has been passed in favour of respondents no.1 to 4/claimants as against the appellant/insurer by applying 1/5th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased placing reliance on authority of the Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Another AIR 200.SC 3104. 2 Learned counsel appearing for appellant/Insurer submits that 1/5th deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has wrongly been done by the Tribunal. The deduction ought to have been 1/4 th as per the above ...
Dhiraj Aseem Sona Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Dhiraj Aseem Sona versus State & others W.P.No.13064/2012 28/08/2012 Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA on advance notice for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a Patwari and challenge in this writ petition is made mainly on the ground that the policy of the State Government as contained in Clause9.5 of the circular AnnexureP5 dated 1st of May, 2012, wherein it is indicated that a Patwari or a Revenue Inspector shall not be posted in his home Tehsil. Challenge to this policy is made mainly on the ground that in Section 104 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the Terms and Conditions governing appointment to the post of Patwari, there is no prohibition for his working in the home Tehsil and as the statutory provision is violated by incorporating such condition, this writ petition is ...
Mukesh Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13173/2012 (Mukesh Dubey versus State of MP and otheRs.28.08.2012 Heard Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of police authorities on the complaint made by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur to look into the complaint of the petitioner and deal with the same in accordance with law. To enable the respondent No.3 to do so, a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition be served upon him by the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Narendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Northern Coal Fields Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13089 o28. 08.12 Shri Sandeep Koshta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, GA for respondent No.1,2,3 and 5 on advance copy. Shri AloK Hoonka, counsel for respondent No.4 the Caveator. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents/ authorities to pay him the compensation with all benefits of rehabilitation scheme against acquirement of his land by the respondents. In additional to it the prayer for appropriate direction to respondents to consider his pending representation is also made. Having heard the counsel for the parties, in the available circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, at this juncture, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ authorities to consider his pending representation dated 5.6.12 (Annx.P/6) within sixty days from the date of filing t...
Baba TazuddIn Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs. the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.13326 / 2012 (Baba Tajuddin Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh,Sidhi..v...State of MP & otheRs.28-08-2012 Shri A. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned panel lawyer, for the State/respondents. Shri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.6. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by interim order dated 19-7-2012, passed by the respondent No.3, Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, whereby he has stayed the operation of the order dated 17-7-2012, passed by the S.D.O., Sinhawal, District Sidhi staying the removal of the petitioner from the contract for supply of mid day meal at Middle School, Khorwa Tola, Janpad Panchayat Sinhawal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been awarded the aforesaid contract which has been cancelled by the Zila Panchayat without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner b...
Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
W.P.No.6407/2012 28.08.2012 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. It is stated by Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Madhu Shukla, Advocate, that brief has been withdrawn from him and he has no instructions on behalf of the respondent No.4. Let SPC be issued to the respondent No.4 informing about the pendency of the present petition and the fact regarding no instructions pleaded by learned Senior counsel. Learned Govt. Advocate will also seek instructions and will file his response if required, within a period of four weeks. List the petition along with other analogous matteRs.(K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Pancham Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Pancham Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13474 28. 8.2012: Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Challenge to the impugned order transferring petitioner from one Gram Panchayat to another is made on the ground that transfer policy is violated. Merely because the policy of transfer is violated, judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not permissible in view of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Choudhary versus State of M.P.ILR, 2007, MP 1329. Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the grounds raised, the petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue with the departmental remedies available. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Mirza Shabbir Beg Vs. M.P. Wakf Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
R.P.No.491/2012 28.08.2012 Shri Riyaz Mohd., learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing the order in C.R.No.187/2012 on 18.05.2012 in paragraph 2, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has claimed addition of the word 'title' in the issues framed, whereas in fact the application was made by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for deletion of the word 'title' (swamitwa).This being so, since the subsequent application made by the petitioner is going to be prejudicialy affected, this review petition is sought to be filed. On perusal of record and the application made by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, it is found that in fact the petitioner has prayed for deletion of the word 'title' and, therefore, there was a bonafide mistake occurred on the face of record to mention that the petitioner has made an application for addition of the word 'title'. Consequently, this review petition is allowed. The fin...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »