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.
Mumtaz Ansari Vs. Mujaffar Ali Ansari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 W.P.No.14630/2012 30.1.2013 Shri R.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below granting temporary injunction to the plaintiffs in a proceeding held under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, petitioners have filed this writ petition. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners tried to emphasize that the injunction has been granted in an illegal manner and ignoring the entries made in the revenue records. The order passed by the trial Court and fiRs.appellate authority goes to show that both the Courts have taken note of the totality of the circumstances and finally based on the payment of water bills to the irrigation department and other documents filed by the plaintiffs it is held by the Courts below that at the time of institution of suit possession of plaintiffs has been established and for protection of the possession granted temporary injunction. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below indicating possession of th...
Heeralal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 985/2013 30.1.2013 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Government Advocate for respondents. Heard. Craving indulgence, petitioner, retired skilled Mistry, Public Works Department seeks direction to respondents to execute Revenue Recovery Certificate for recovery of Rs.3,55,124/, which in turn is issued by the Labour Court, Rewa on 19.3.2012. Recovery is in lieu of order passed on 12.12.2011 on an application under Section 108 M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 961, wherein, claim of the petitioner for payment of wages from 1.4.1999 to 31.5.2010 was allowed. The order was affirmed in appeal preferred by respondent vide Misc. Application 5/MPIR/2012 dismissed on 29.8.2012. Contention of the petitioner is that respondents have No. challenged the order dated ...
Upendra Kumar Khampariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Writ Petition No.1364/2013 28.01.2013 Mr.U.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharamadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Commissioner namely the respondent No.2 by which Village Library and Community Centres have been abruptly closed. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controveRs.involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by order dated 28.11.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19558/2011 (s) and other connected matteRs.In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of on similar terMs.Certified copy as per rules. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC...
Jagan Vs. Maharani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Second Appeal No.1856 / 2005 ( Jagan & others..Vs.Maharani & otheRs.30-01-2013 Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri B.J.Chourasia, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on I.A.No.5429/2005 filed by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that when the appellants were prevented from entering the field by the respondents, they contacted their counsel and thereafter came to knot about passing of the judgment and decree against them and in such circumstances 54 days' delay in filing the appeal has occurred which deserves to be condoned. Notices on the said application were issued to the respondents and though no reply has been filed to the aforesaid application, it is vehemently opposed by the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons mentioned therein the application for condonation of delay is al...
Harihar Patankar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Review Petition No.38/2013 30.01.2013 MRS.Devika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharamadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. This petition has been filed for modification of the order dated 02.1.2013 passed in writ petition No.21565/2012 (s).Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of typographical error, direction has been issued to the respondent No.5 to decide the representations which are pending consideration before the respondent No.1. The aforesaid aspect is not disputed by the Government Advocate. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, order dated 2.1.2013 is modified and it is directed that the representations contained in Annexure P/8 and P/9 shall be decided expeditiously by the respondent No.1 instead of the respondent No.5. This order shall be read in conjunction with order dated 02.1.2013. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rule...
Ravinandan Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Writ Petition No.1365/2013 30.01.2013 Mr.Prabhat Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharamadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the Departmental Enquiry pending against the petitioner in time bound period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Inquiry Officer submitted report on 26.10.2010 to the Disciplinary Authority yet the departmental enquiry has not been concluded by the Disciplinary Authority and the petitioner is due to retire on 31st March, 2013. It is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the departmental enquiry within fixed time limit. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that the suitable action shall be taken to conclude the departmental enqu...
Ram Krishna Choubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Cr R No.2225 o30. 01.2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, learned PL for respondent no.1-State. Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, the show cause notice against admission of this revision, returnable by fixing a date in the month of April 2013, be issued to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, failing which this revision shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. Learned PL is directed to call for the case diary and produce the same before the court in the next week. Applicant's counsel is also directed to place the entire copy of the charge sheet on record before next hearing enabling the court to consider the question involved in this revision. As an interim measure the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with the procedure but shall not deliver the judgment in this matter, unless...
Rahul Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 30/1/2013 Shri V.K.Tripathi, 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, seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No 60/12 at Police Station Singhpur under Section 395 and 397 of IPC on the basis of report of respondent No.2. Notice of this petition be issued to respondent No.2 by RAD. Steps within three working days. Service of notice be made returnable within three weeks. Let matter be listed in the week commencing from 11/3/13 for consideration of stay application. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
Miss. Nikita Gupta Vs. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 RP No.49/13 30.01.13. Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for petitioner. Petitioner is also present. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Shri H.Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner visited the college of respondent no.3, but the respondent no.3 has not accepted the fees along with the examination fees and in this regard petitioner has filed a representation on 28.01.13 to respondent no.3. It is submitted that petitioner is ready to deposit the entire fees and also the examination fees, and the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to prosecute the studies and also to appear in the examination scheduled from 1st of February, 2013. It is also submitted by the petitioner who is present in Court that she is attending the classes since 15th of October, 2012 and is eligible to appear in the examination. 2 Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that if e...
T.S.Bihone Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Writ Petition No.13231/2008 30.01.2013 Mr.Sunil Choubey, Advocate with Mr.Dhananjay Asati, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.MRS.D.K.Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seek quashment of order dated 29.2.2008. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioners were the employees of the society namely Pragatisheel Shakshanik Sanstha, Sadra, Balaghat. The aforesaid society used to run an education institution which was taken over by the State Government vide order dated 21st November, 2000/ 2.12.2000 and a decision was taken to absorb the services of the employees of the school. The State Government also approved the staffing pattern. However, the claim of the petitioners for absorption was rejected by the respondents with reference to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Samvida Shala Shiksha (Niyojan Avam Samvid...