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.
Dilip Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Kuldeep Kumar Dwivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
WRIT APPEAL No.1225/20010. 01.2013 Shri R.B.Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned senior Counsel with Shri C.A.Thomas, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. On 01.03.2012, this Court passed an order directing the parties to examine whether the appellant's appointment as Panchayat Karmi dated 22.12.2007 was cancelled, revoked or negated by any authority at any stage. Obviously, the decision of this case depends on whether that appointment is in force because if the appointment dated 22.12.2007 has not been set aside, the process for selection to the said post could not have been initiated. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Smt. Menon, learned senior Counsel for respondent No.1, referred various orders including the order of the Commissioner dated 07.11.2009 where the Commissioner has referred to the order appointing the appellant dated 22.12.2007 and has made an observation to the effect that the said order need not be taken into account s...
Chhindwara Minerals Corporation Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
W.P.No.111/2013 10/01/2013 Shri Amalpushp Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Petitioner had applied for grant of mining lease. On 11.3.2005, the Central Government conveyed it's approval for grant of prospecting license to the petitioner under Section 5 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for the purpose of mining of Minerals in an area comprising of 7.1122 hectares situated in Village Bhudkam, District- Chhindwara. After obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Gram Panchayat on 10.6.2005 from the Forest Department and from the office of Collector Chhindwara on 17.6.2005, it is seen that prospecting license was granted to the petitioner on 29.6.2005, thereafter, petitioner had applied for grant of mining lease over 4.553 Hectares and on 6.3.2006, the Mining Inspector Chhindwara recommended for grant of mining lease on 10.4.2006 and based on the said recommendation, th...
Shyam Kumar Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.14067 OF 200.(s) Shri Shyam Kumar Yadav Petitioner versus State of M. P. and another Respondents Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menot Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe ...................................................................................................... Shri Pranay Verma for the petitioner. Shri R. B. Tiwari for respondent No.1. Shri V. S. Shroti with Shri Vikram Johri for respondent No.2 . .................................................................................................. ORDER (10/01/13) As per Rajendra Menon, J:- Challenging the order passed Annexure P-1 dated 29/01/08 passed by the State Govt. terminating the appointment of the petitioner during the period of probation, petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Petitioner was appointed temporarily on probation as a Civil Judge in the M. P. Judicial Service vide order dated 31/07/03. His appointment initially was for a period of two y...
Raj Homes Private Limited Vs. Bhopal Development Authority ( Bda)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
1 Writ Petition No.2038/2012 10.01.2013 Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Verma, for the petitioner. Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondent. Parties agree that the dispute between them be resolved by a Mediator. They further agree that Justice Deepak Verma, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, be appointed as Mediator in the case. In view of the aforesaid agreement between the parties, Justice Deepak Verma, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, is appointed as Mediator in the case. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Mediator on 19.1.2013. The learned Mediator is requested to submit a report within a period of four weeks thereafter. Let the matter be listed after five weeks. In the meanwhile, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as it exists today. Certified copy as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge HS...
Dr. Kiran Tripathi Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :26. 2013 Dr. Kiran Tripathi versus Dr. Sanjay Tiwari and another. 09.01.2013. Shri Praveen Chourasia for the applicant. Shri Mahendra Pateriya with Shri S.K.Chaturvedi for the non-applicants. Interalia contending that the directions issued by this Court on 14.9.2012, in W.P.No.15203/2012, has not been complied with within a period of two months as directed, this writ petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and on a perusal of the records it is seen that after orders were passed on 14.9.2012, certified copy of the order was prepared and according to the documents Annexure C/1, counsel for the applicant communicated the order to the Registrar on 28.12.2012. Neither in the body of the contempt petition not in the documents filed, there is any averment or material adduced to show that the order was ever communicated to the non-applicants prior to 28.12.2012. If the order was communicated on 28.12.2012, then the period of two months fixed by this Co...
Mohammed Sadik Khan Vs. HakimuddIn Athar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Criminal Revision No.2157/2012 09.01.2013 Shri Narendra Nath Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2-State. Heard on admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicant has challenged the order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Appeal No.57/2012, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant was admitted in motion hearing and sentence was suspended with a condition that the applicant would furnish a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and one surety bond to the same amount with the condition that amount of compensation i.e.sum of Rs.30,000/- be deposited. After considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that the order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni is an interlocutory order, therefore no revision can be entertained against the interlocutory order. Consequently, the present revision...
Smt. Janak Dulari Gupta Vs. Hanumant Singh Raikwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Smt. Janak Dulari Gupta & Anr. versus Hanumat Singh Raikwar Writ Petition No.21683 9. 1.2013: Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners are plaintiffs and are land lord and has filed suit in question for eviction of respondent. In the said suit an application under Section 13(6) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act was filed seeking direction to the defendant/respondent to deposit the rent. The learned court below having rejected application, the petitioners are before this Court. It is the case of petitioners that as the respondent is the defendant and as rent for the suit premises has not being paid after 31.5.2011 an application was filed and same is dismissed by the court below without proper consideration. Having heard Shri Sarvate, learned counsel for the petitioner, and on perusal of order passed by the court below it is seen that the court below based on material and evidence on record has found that prima facie it is seen that the suit premises is lo...
Narendra Singh @ Nanhu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
CRR.No.2265/2012 Criminal Revision No.2265/2012 9.1.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 2.11.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dindori in S.T.No.84/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 342, 305 of IPC were appended against the applicant. The facts relating to the present revision, in short, are that, the applicant was a distant brother of the deceased. On 19.6.2012, the victim Anita was residing in the house of her maternal grandfather at village Chidgaon. She was staying in the room at the time of the incident, when a customary function was going on in the house. She was collecting the clothings in the room and the applicant came inside the room to charge a mobile. In the meantime, the co-accused Baratu closed the door from front side and locked it. The deceased ...
Lalchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.NO.22108/2012 09-01-2013 Shri Agnivesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Hoonka,learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no.4. Inter alia contending that adequate compensation has not been granted and the purpose for which land is being acquired is changed, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are establishing a coal conveyor belt without permission and without payment of compensation and therefore, this writ petition is filed. Shri Hoonka appears on behalf of respondent no.4 and submits that the land has been acquired for the purpose of establishment of a power project and for the purpose of transporting coal, coal conveyor belt is being constructed. It is stated that the construction of coal conveyor belt is integral part of the activity for the establishment of a power plant plant and therefore the contention of the petitioner that the land used is being changed is not correct. Prima facie just...
Kamala Kant Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Writ Petition No :21685. 2012 Kamala Kant Mishra versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.09.01.2013. Shri S.P.Mishra for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Petitioner is owner of Tractor alongwith Trolley and on the ground that various offence has been committed, the Tractor and Trolley have been seized and confiscation proceedings are going on. Petitioner moved an application for release of the vehicle on supurdnama. When nothing was done, he filed a petition under section 482 CrPC before this Court, being M.Cr.C.No.8738/2011, and vide order-dated 2.3.2012, a Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the proceeding under section 482 CrPC with liberty to approach the competent authority for release of the vehicle on supurdnama. Accordingly, the competent authority was requested to release the vehicle on supurdnama, but the competent authority vide Annexure P/12 dated 30.5.2012 has held that prima facie the material available...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »