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.
Dr. Udayeshwar Sharma Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :27. 2013 Dr. Udayeshwar Sharma 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.15200/2012, 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...
M/S Anamika Travels Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.No.19386/2012 09/01/2013 Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate on advance notice for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri Subhash Pandey, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 Petitioner has filed this writ petition and feels aggrieved by the inaction on the part of Respondent No.2 the Regional Transport Authority Jabalpur in not granting counter signature to the petitioner for the purpose of operating regular Stage Carriages. The petitioner has been granted permits for running the regular Stage Carriages in the route Jabalpur to Damoh. For operating the permit, counter signature is to be granted. It is stated that part of the route in question falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Regional Authority Sagar. It may be taken note of that the permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority Sagar i.e.Respondent No.4 and as certain part of the route in question falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Respondent No...
Smt. Asha Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.1370/2012 09.01.2013 Shri A.P.Singh, Advocate 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. In view of the admitted fact that there is no speaking order passed on the representation made by the appellant, Shri Pandey, Deputy Advocate General, states that the transfer order hereby stands withdrawn and the State Government will consider the representation and pass a speaking order thereon, as ordered by this Court by the order dated 9.8.2012 and take appropriate action thereafter. In view of the aforesaid statement made by Mr.Pandey, Deputy Advocate General at Bar, this writ appeal is disposed of. It is further directed that till the speaking order is communicated to the appellant, the appellant shall not be disturbed from her present place of posting. Rule made absolute in the above terMs.Certified copy as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.T...
Parmeshwardeen Mishra Vs. Rakesh Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.No.9152/2012 09/01/2013 Shri Ramsuphal Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is defendant and facing a suit filed by Respondent No.1, Shri Rakesh Singh for declaration and injunction with regard to the land in question bearing KhaSr.No.739 Area 0.84 Acre situated in Village SonvaRs.(Lalgaon) District Rewa. In the said proceeding, petitioner filed an unregistered sale- deed and wanted to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1972 to prove unregistered sale-deed dated 16.7.1947. The said application has been rejected by the court below and it has been found by the court below that the applicant has failed to prove as to whether the original documents was there. The contention of the petitioner that the original document has been lost is disbelieved by the court and finding the photocopy of the documents which is produced and which is proposed to be led as a secondary evidence is not authentic, the application is rejected. The rejection of ...
Jnkvv, Jabalpur Th: Its Registrar Vs. Board of Revenue of M.P. Gwalior ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.7313/2002 Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Vs. Board of Revenue and others W.P. No.27452/2003 State of M.P. and another Vs. Alok Kumar Lohia and others Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. W.P. No.7313/2002 Shri P. N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State Government. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the private respondents. W.P. No.27452/2003 Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioners. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri P. N. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( 8.01.2013 ) As challenge in both these petitions are made to an order dated 2.12.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience the documents available and the pleadings in ...
Daya Shanker Sharma @ Lalan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
CRR.No.2261/2012 Criminal Revision No.2261/2012 9.1.2013 Shri Pushpendra Dubey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 5.9.2012 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.88/2010, whereby the prosecution was permitted to adduce the secondary evidence to the document, which is to be proved by Shri Shishir Pandey (P.W.10).The facts of the case, relating to the present revision, in short, are that, the document which was a letter issued by Army Recruitment HeadquarteRs.Jabalpur was filed with the charge-sheet at serial No.11 of the list. It could not be shown to Brig. Shishir Pandey (P.W.10).Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecutor that the witness Shishir Pandey be recalled, so that he shall bring the office copy of the document from his office to prove that document. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accep...
Hradaylal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.NO.162/13 09-01-2013 Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that in adjacent to the boundary wall of petitioner's house , the respondent company has constructed a captive water plant and as the respondent no.5 is not constructing a proper sewer line , therefore, it is stated that the petitioner's right using a water coups in his house is being interfered with. Claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the illegal activities of respondent no.5, this writ petition is filed. Respondent no.5 is a private company and not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court . That apart the grievance of the petitioner pertains to civil right accruing to the petitioner by virtue of water coup present in his house and act of the respondent no.5 in adulterating the water, the disputes in question pertains to civil dispute which has to be adjudicated on inquiry under the common law by a court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly findin...
Rajesh Shrivastav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1 Writ Petition No.6198/2010 09.01.2013 Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate for the respondents no.1, 3 and 4. Shri Brain DaSilva, Senior Advocate with Shri V.Bhide for respondents no.5 and 6. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Advocate, for respondents no.2, 7 and 8. Having heard the matter for sometimes, we are of the view that the stand of the respondents, M.P.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam that they are only removing over wood is wholly unacceptable in view of what Van Vikas Nigam means by the term over wood.It is apparent from paragraph 4 of the additional submissions dated 10.12.2012 that what contemplated by removal of over wood. is removal of trees.Removal of trees cannot, by no stretc.of imagination, be permitted in the garb of removal of over wood, hence we are constrained to direct Van Vikas Nigam not to remove any trees on any ground except in accordance with law. In accordance with law. in this context would mean compliance of section 38-O ...
Dr.Beena Pani Rath Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :32. 2013 Dr. Beena Pani Rath 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.15198/2012, 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 C...
M.C.Mittal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.No.17000/2012 09/01/2013 Petitioner, Shri M.C.Mittal present in person. Petitioner has filed this writ petition and is seeking compensation of `10 Lacs from Respondent No.3, Shri R.K.Dwivedi a private individual. It is stated that Shri R.K.Dwivedi has shown a false affidavit and has caused loss to the reputation, dignity and honour to the petitioner. Further claiming that the said officer is a Director in the Government Department and has acted in a negligent manner and caused loss to the petitioner's reputation, a compensation of `30 Lacs is sought for. Petitioner was an employee worked in the establishment of the State Government and was compulsorily retired from service w.e.f.2.6.2002. He filed a writ petition before this Court i.e.W.P.No.2376/2005 raising certain financial claim, contending that in the return filed in the writ petition, the officer has sworn a false affidavit, this writ petition is filed seeking compensation. If the officer has sworn a false affidavit in a writ...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »