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.
Nand Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Radhe Shyam Julaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc.C.No :2127. 2012 Nand Kumar Dwivedi versus Radhe Shyam Julaniya and otheRs.09.01.2013. Shri Ajay Dwivedi for the applicant. Interalia contending that certain directions issued on 2.9.2004, in W.P.No.7098/2004, has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating any action for contempt after a period of more than eight yeaRs.Initiating action for contempt after a period of more than eight years is not proper. The officers who were responsible for taking action in the year 2004 would no more be available and, therefore, it is not proper to initiate action for contempt. Instead, if the applicant has any grievance still subsisting in the matter, he is granted liberty to assail the same afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, finding no case for initiating action for contempt, this application stands dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Nandan Patel Vs. Ambika Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.No.2568/2012 09/01/2013 Shri J.L.Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Challenging an interlocutory order dated 18.1.2012 passed by the IV Civil Judge Class-I Sagar rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under Section 10 of C.P.C for amendment in the pleadings and for raising an plea of res-judicata, this writ petition is filed. It was the case of the petitioner in the proceedings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC that the IInd Civil Judge Class-I in Civil Suit No.23A/2003 vide judgments and decree dated 5.12.2006 has already decided the dispute with regard to the property in question and, therefore, as the present suit on the same dispute is barred by the principle of res-judicata, petitioner wanted to implead a plea of res-judicata by amending the pleadings. The application is rejected by the court below mainly on two grounds, fiRs.is that the amendment is delayed as it is sought for after a long period of time and secondly on merits it is found by the court below tha...
Smt. Shanti Devi Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Writ Petition No :158. 2013 Smt. Shanti Devi Prajapati versus State of MP and others 09.01.2013. Shri A.K.Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PL, for the State. Grievance of the petitioner is that a complaint made by the petitioner with regard to an offence committed against her under section 376 of the IPC, is not being registered and the case is not being investigated. Respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police, Singrauli, is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and proceed to take action into the same in accordance with law. On the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order alongwith relevant documents, respondent No.2 shall issue necessary instructions and directions to the competent authority to take action in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Amar Bahadur Vs. Shri R.C. Choudhari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc.C.No :1237. 2012 Amar Bahadur versus Shri R.C.Choudhari. 09.01.2013. Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava for the applicant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari and Shri Pranay Choubey for the non-applicant. Considering the fact that claim of the applicant was already considered and a decision was taken vide Annexure R/1 on 19.10.2004, I see no reason to initiate any action contempt. If the applicant has any grievance in the matter of passing of the order-dated 19.10.2004 Annexure R/1, he may initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. For the present, in view of the above circumstances, finding no case for initiating any action for contempt, the non- applicant is discharged and the application stands dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Dayaram Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.1390/2012 09.01.2013 Shri V.S.Shroti, Senior Advocate with Shri Vikram Johri for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up finally. Admittedly, the rules which govern the appellant are the M.P.State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973, in which there is no provision for appeal against an order of suspension. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the petition. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.11.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.19571/2012 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for considering the matter afresh, at the earliest. Writ appeal stands allowed and disposed of. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge HS...
Laxman Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Laxman Prasad Tiwari versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.2521 9. 1.2013: Shri P.R.Bhave, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Banu Pratap Yadav, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Chourasiya , learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri T.S.Ruprah, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Harpreet Ruprah, counsel for respondent No.3. Challenging order Annexure P-1 dated 15.5.2007 passed by Tahsildar Sagar and the order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the District Judge Sagar in the matter of directing for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,38,215/- as court fee from the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner has filed the suit in question against respondent No.3 for recovery of certain ornaments valued at Rs.14,38,215/-, petitioner was permitted to file the suit as an indigent person. However vide order Annexure P-4 dated 30.3.2007 the suit has been disposed of and in para 29 of the said order learned Court has directed for recovery of court-fees from petitioner in accordance t...
Bhanwar Singh Vs. Smt. Shakuntala
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Second Appeal No.1402 / 2012 ( Bhanwar Singh and another ..Vs.Smt. Shakuntala & two ORS.) 09-01-2013 Heard Shri Y.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiffs on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-9-2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anuppur, in C.A.No.13-A/2012, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16-3-2011, passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Anuppur, in C.S.No.72-A/2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiffs that the appellant/plaintiffs had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing KhaSr.No.125/1, area 0.53 acre, KhaSr.No.126/1, area 0.05 acre and KhaSr.No.127, area 1.06 acres, situated in village Mainadongri, Tahsil Jaithari, District Anuppur on the ground that the said property had been sold by their father, defendant No.2 to the defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed ...
Sheikh Aabid Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.No.21574/2012 09/01/2013 Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioners claim to be owners of various pieces of land situated in Samnapur District-Balaghat. It is stated that for the purpose of laying down of a railway line, land of the petitioners was acquired. Contending that as per the policy formulated by the respondents/Railway Administration, compassionate appointment has to be granted to persons, from whom the land was acquired and further submitting that the claim of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with circular Annexure-P3 and P4 dated 16.7.2010 is not being considered, this writ petition has been filed. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel appears for the respondents and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the claim of the petitioners for grant of appointment in accordance with policies and circulaRs.as referred to herei...
Sudhir JaIn Vidyarthi Vs. Shri Manoj Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1 Conc. No.305/2012 Sudhir Jain Vidyarthi Shri Manot Shrivastava & others 9.1.2013 Shri A.K.Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA for respondents. By order dated 27.2.2012, we had asked the petitioner whether on the representation, any enquiry was conducted by the Collector or not, because entire contempt petition is silent on the issue. By order dated 6.4.2011 in W.P.No.3884/2011, directions were issued to the Collector to conduct an enquiry on the representation.Though representation Annexure C/2 was filed, but what happened on the representation, nothing has been stated in the contempt petition. In these circumstances, at present, we do not find it a case in which notice can be issued. However, we permit the petitioner to move an application to the Collector, Damoh for action on the representation Annexure C/2, if already not decided. With the aforesaid liberty, this contempt petition is finally disposed of with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Si...
Mohit Agrawal Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1...W.P.No.20125 o09. 01.2013 Shri Ravindra Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Additional A.G.for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for the ventilation of the grievances and also to submit before him that the petitioner may be permitted to appear in the 4th Semester, subject to filing an undertaking that in case petitioner could not clear second Semester, his result for the 4th Semester may not be declared. It is submitted that with the aforesaid liberty, petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition. Shri Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. In view of the aforesaid, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Vice- Chancellor of the respondent University for the ventilation of the grievances. Needless to say that in case any such representation is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Next ›
- Last »