Madhya Pradesh Court January 2013 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.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shobha Y. Ingole
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Writ Appeal No.314/2012 29.1.2013 Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri D.K.Dixit, Advocate, for the respondent. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.2.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in Writ Petition No.7601/2011 by which the respondent has sought direction to the appellants to retest the sample of High Speed Diesel (HSD) which was drawn on 12.3.2011 through any impartial laboratory other than belonging to the appellants and to furnish a report of the same. Testing of the sample assumed importance in view of the fact that action was being taken against the respondent for selling of the product which do not meet the specific requirement and a show cause notice was issued. The learned Single Judge, after considering the provision of section 20 of the Petroleum Act 1934, came to the conclusion that it would be proper to direct the appellants to send the sample of the HSD kept in the custody of respondent for re-testing in an appropria...
Murloidhar Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :18150. Of 2012 Murlidhar & Another V/s Board of Revenue, M.P. & Others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 29.1.2013 Challenging orders Annexure P-19 dated 23.8.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Annexure P-18 dated 28.2.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad and the order Annexure P-16 dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Tehsildar (Revenue) Harda in a proceedings held before him under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, this writ petition has been filed.2. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 initiated the proceedings against the present petition...
Firoz Ansari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1 29/1/2013 Shri Pradeep Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate for the respondent / State. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2012 passed by the competent authority of the Forest Department, declining the Supuradnama of the vehicle in question. Heard on IA No.1132/13, an application for amendment. In view of the fact that the relief sought is against the order of the authority of the Forest Department, impleadment of authority of the Forest Department as respondent would be appropriate rather necessary, IA No.1132/13 is allowed. Let amendment be carried out within three working days. Notice of this petition be issued to the respondents by RAD. Steps within three working days. Notice be made returnable within three 2 weeks. Let matter be listed in the week commencing from 25.2.2013 for further consideration. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Vinot Kumar Jain versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.7730 29. 1.2013: Shri J.K.Verma and Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri Kumresh Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner claims to be the owner of certain land described in para 5.2 of the writ petition. Grievance of the petitioner is that notice dated 9.5.2006 has been issued by the M.P.Road Development Corporation asking him to remove certain encroachment made on government land. It is the case of petitioner that a road is being constructed by the M.P.Road Development Corporation and for construction of the road a notice is issued indicating that the encroachment should be removed by the petitioner. Interalia contending that petitioner has not committed any illegality or encroachment as alleged, he is only utilizing/staying in an area which has been purchased by him and denying the allegation of encroachment...
Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Marya Vs. the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :6419. 2006 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit - V/s - State of Madhya Pradesh and others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Imtiaz Husain. for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent Nos.4 and 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (29-01-2013) Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order Annexure P-1 dated 20-04-2006, passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1976).2. By the impugned order Annexure P-1, the earlier order passed by the same authority as contained in Annexure P-2 dated 13-10-2005 is reviewed and modified. Both orders are passed by the ...
Harpal Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
WP 14648.08 Writ Petition No.14648 of 2008(s) (Harpal Kol v. The State of M.P.and three otheRs.29-01-2013 Shri Sanjeev K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. None for respondent No.4. Heard. Order passed herein shall govern the disposal of Writ Petition No.13297/2008(s) : Shiv lochan Prasad Kol and another v. The State of M.P.and three otheRs.Being aggrieved of his non-promotion as Upper Division Teacher and being superseded by respondent No.4 petitioner, an Assistant Teacher has filed this petition seeking quashment of promotion of respondent No.4 and his consideration for promotion. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an appointee of 10-01-1994 whereas respondent No.4 was appointed on 14-01-1994. That both, the petitioner and respondent No.4 belongs to Scheduled Tribe Category. That in the gradation list of Assistant Teachers the petitioner is at Serial No.3033 whereas respondent No.4 is at Serial No.3051...
Manglu @ Langu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2277/2010 1. Manglu alias Langdu, son of Bhaiyalal, Aged about 40 years, 2. Rammu alias Ramesh, son of Bhaiyalal, Aged about 32 years. Both residents of Bordehi, Tahsil Amla, Distt. Betul Appellants Versus. State of M.P., through SHO, P.S. Bordehi, Distt. Betul Respondent ....... Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Akshay Namdeo, PL for the State/respondent. ....... Date of Hearing :17. 1/2013 Date of Judgment :29. 1/2013 JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13/10/2010 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, Distt. Betul in S.T. No.33/2007, whereby each one of the appellants was convicted and sentenced as under Convicted under Section Sentenced to 333 read with 34 of IPC undergo RI for 5 years and to (for causing grievous hurt to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in Lahnu, a Head Constable, to default, to suffer additional RI deter him from his duty) for 1 month. 332 read with ...
Kapoor Chand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Kapoor Chand versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.7732 29. 1.2013: Shri J.K.Verma and Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri Kumresh Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner claims to be the owner of certain land described in para 5.2 of the writ petition. Grievance of the petitioner is that notice dated 9.5.2006 has been issued by the M.P.Road Development Corporation asking him to remove certain encroachment made on government land. It is the case of petitioner that a road is being constructed by the M.P.Road Development Corporation and for construction of the road a notice is issued indicating that the encroachment should be removed by the petitioner. Interalia contending that petitioner has not committed any illegality or encroachment as alleged, he is only utilizing/staying in an area which has been purchased by him and denying the allegation of encroachment, th...
Rameshwar Prasad Kushwaha Vs. M.P. Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Lt ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.97/2013 29/1/2013 Shri V.C.Rai, counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking quashment of complaint case 2212/2010 pending in the Court of Special Judge, (Electricity Act) Rewa on the basis of complaint made by the respondent M.P.Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Copmpany LTD.Though a copy of the petition has been supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Shri Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate, who normally appears on behalf of respondent. However, by way of precaution a notice of this petition be again issued to respondent by RAD. Steps within three working days. Notice be made returnable within three weeks. Simultaneously office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate in the cause list. Let matter be listed in the week commencing from 18.2.2013 for further consideration. 2 (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
Devendra JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.15418/12 29/1/2013 Shri Vivek Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate for the respondent / State. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for restoration of M Cr. C No.5100/2012, dismissed for want of prosecution on 2.7.2012 by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed an affidavit in support of this petition, disclosing the cause of absence, simply inadvertence on his part so that he himself could not see his case in the Cause List not only once, but twice. Such inadvertence is not expected from a lawyer. In view of the fact that he is keen interested and willing to take the matter wholeheartedly and no party should be put to loss for lapses of the counsel, petition is allowed. M.Cr.C No.5100/12 is restored to its original number. So far as this M.Cr.C is concerned, it stands disposed of. CC as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/- 2...