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.
Jai Prakash Basediya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
W.P.No.1071/2013 23/1/2013 Shri Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents on advance notice. Grievance of the petitioner is two fold. His fiRs.grievance is that respondent No.5 refused to register a sale deed submitted by the petitioner immediately on its registration as a result the constitutional right available to the petitioner to seek compensation for acquisition of land which belongs to him is being adversely effected. Record indicates that petitioner is said to have purchased the land in question by executing the sale deed on 12.3.2011 Annexure P/1 is a copy of the sale deed. It is stated that it was presented on the same date in the office of respondent No.5 for registration, however, the sale deed was not registered and the petitioner was informed that certain administrative instructions have been issued by the respondent No.3 to the effect that all sale deeds in the particular village are not to be registered. A...
Alp Sankhyak Mahila Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Mydit Vs. the St ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Alp Sankhyak Mahila Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhjandar Mydt versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.404 23. 1.2013: Shri Manot Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Caveator. Challenging order dated 7.11.2012 passed by the District Supply Officer, Chhatarpur in the matter of running of Fair Price Shop in question, this writ petition has been filed. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, from the facts that have come on record it is clear that the order impugned is appealable and the petitioner has already filed an appeal Annexure P-13 before the Collector challenging the same order dated 7.11.2012. As the appeal in the matter Annexure P-13 is already pending, I see no reason to interfere in the matter, instead appellate authority is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner for interim relief at an earlier date and make endeavor to decide the appeal itself after hearing all concerne...
Sureshchandra Malviya Vs. M.P.State Co-operative Oil Seed Grovers Fede ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
-1- W.P.No.4132/2011(s) 23/1/2013 Shri Aniruddha Waghmare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for respondents. Placing reliance on the decision dated 16.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.2791/2005(s) (Ravindra Lele V. M.P.State Cooperative Oil Seed Grovers Federation Ltd and otheRs.learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the instant petition is similarly placed as said Ravindra Lele. It is urged, that though Writ Appeal No.201/2009 is preferred against the order dated 16.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2791/2005(S) ; the operation of said order has not been stayed. It is accordingly contended that similar benefit as given to Ravindra Lele (supra) be extended to the petitioner ,i.e, grant of seniority from initial date of appointment and not from the date when his services were absorbed with the M.P.State Cooperative Oil Seed Growers Federation Ltd,. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection if respondents are directed to c...
Ahasanul Haque Vs. Western Coal Field Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
WP 763.13 Writ Petition No.763 of 2013 (Ahasanul Haque v. Western Coal Fields LTD.and two otheRs.23-01-2013 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner, Foreman In-charge (Mechanical.).Mohan Colliery, Chandametta, Chhindwara, vide this writ petition seeks direction to respondents to enter correct date of birth, i.e., 7-12-1956 in place of 1-7-1952 in his service record. The direction is being sought in the wake of the order dated 27-2-2012, which is in following term :- In pursuance of Letter not WCL/IR/MPR/GEN-4/KAN/Settle/176/304 dtd. 20/2/2012 issued by Chief Manager (O & IR) WCL Nagpur subsequent letter not APM/Kanhan/23/2012/361 dtd. 2/2/2012 issued by Area Personnel Manager, Kanhan Area, Date of birth of Shri Ahsanul haque S/o Shamsher haque, Foreman (Mech.) Mohan Colliery NEIS No.25387294 Kunhan Area have been corrected as 19/3/1954 on the basis of the age, which is recoded in his initial Form-B. As such Manager (P).Mohan Colliery is hereby directed ...
Bhagvant Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Writ Petition No.1163/2013 23.1.2013 Shri Arvind Tiwari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State. Heard on admission. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the election process of Cooperative Societies Limited, Tala, District Sidhi. Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short the Act.) entitles any party to raise a dispute in connection with the election of any officer of the Society or representative of the Society or of Composite Society. This is also apparent from Clause V of sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Act. The petitioner has challenged the election process on various grounds which he can also raise while referring a dispute under section 64 of the Act. In Harneek Singh versus Charanjit Singh (2005) 8 SCC 38.the Supreme Court has held that if a remedy of election petition is available, writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. I am, therefore, not inclined to admit this petition. ...
Shyama Charan Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Writ Petition No :12443. / 2011 Shyama Charan Pathak & others versus State of MP and others 23.01.2013. Shri Deependra Mishra for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Challenging the order-dated 20.6.2011 Annexure P/1, in the matter of refusing allocation of Kerosene quota to the petitioneRs.this writ petition has been filed. Petitioners are licensed hawkeRs.eligible to sell Kerosene in the District of Chhatarpur. Grievance of the petitioners are that since July 2011, Kerosene is not being supplied to them for sale on the ground that the quantity of Kerosene allocated to Chhatarpur District is not adequate to permit sale through HawkeRs.By filing voluminous documents and certain additional rejoinder, petitioners have tried to emphasize that in the district in question surplus quantity of Kerosene oil is available and, therefore, the reason given for not giving the quota to the petitioners is unsustainable. It is pointed out by filing rejoinder that af...
Shyam Lal Singh Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 538/2013 23.1.2013 Shri Prahlad Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Engaged on daily wages as Time Keeper in Public Works Department in 1979, petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31.5.2012 from Public Works Department B/R Sub Division No. 1 Umaria. That, while the petitioner was in employment as Time Keeper on daily wages an order came to be passed vide No. 1289/Stha/31/97 dated 24.3.1999 appointing the petitioner as Time Keeper in Grade Rs.27504400. Besides said order, ten more such orders were passed. These ordeRs. as apparent from order No. 9411/Stha/10985 dated 29.9.99, Annexure P/ 1, were suspended with immediate effect, relegating the petitioner to the status of daily wage time keeper. Petitioner did not challenge the said order and continued to serve for 13 years as daily wage time keeper and retired as such o...
Amita Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1...W.P.No.614 o23. 01.2013 Smt. Sudha Goutam, Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Counsel for respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that relief as prayed in the petition has been granted by the respondents. However, it was submitted by Smt. Goutam that the relief has been granted after filing of this petition and the petitioners being students, they may be awarded cost of this petition. Though the prayer is opposed by the counsel for the respondents but considering the fact that the examinations were conducted in November,2009, of which result was declared on 26.6.2010 but the mark-sheets were not issued to the students inspite of filing representations and approaching to the respondents, as is apparent form the perusal of the representation Annexure P-4. We find that the petitioners are entitled for the cost and accordingly while disposing of this petition, we direct the respondent No.2 to make payment of the cost to the petitioners and...
Sahdev Meshram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
CRR.No.2386/2012 Criminal Revision No.2386/2012 23.1.2013 Shri Shishir Kumar Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. As prayed, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The learned JMFC, Balaghat (Shri Mahesh Lachoriya) vide judgment dated 30.5.2012 in criminal case No.1642/2009, convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In criminal appeal No.238/2012, the learned Additional Judge to FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat vide judgment dated 23.11.2012, dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below the applicant has preferred the present revision. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the complainant is the wife of the applicant. Their marriage took place on 23.5.2006, thereafter, the complainant was being harassed for so many things. She was directed to ...
Smt.Phoolmati Kushwaha Vs. Bhagwan Deen Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Writ Petition No :21488. / 2012 Smt. Phoolmati Kushwaha versus Bhagwan Deen Patel 23.01.2013. Shri Mukhtar Ahmed for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, is made to an interlocutory order-dated 4.10.2012 passed by the court below and an order-dated 23.9.2011, by which an application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointing a Commission for spot inspection and demarcation has been rejected. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. Interalia contending that there is serious dispute with regard to the boundary of the property in question, the application has been filed. Learned Court has found that earlier also at the instance of the defendant similar prayer made has been rejected and finding that for the purpose of deciding the dispute calling for a commissions report and directing demarcation is not necessary, application is rejected. Rejection of the app...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »