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.
M/S Shree Sharda Domestic Fuels Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADAHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR W.P.No.15484/2007 M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others. W.P.No.15421/2007 M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others. W.P.No.2802/2008 M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Asstt.Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2810/2008 M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2811/08 M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt.Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2823/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2824/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt.Commissioner and others. 2 W.P.No.2825/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2826/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2827/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2828/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2829/08 M/s Vandana...
Dinesh Kumar Dua Vs. Dr.G.S.Kalchuri
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Writ Petition No :13039. 2012 Shri Dinesh Kumar Dua & Another versus Dr. G.S.Kalchuri. 07.01.2013. Shri D.R.Choudhary for the petitioneRs.Shri R.P.Mishra for the respondents. Petitioner No.1 is plaintiff in a suit filed for declaration and injunction. With regard to the property in question and in the said suit two applications - one under Order VII Rule 14(3).and, another application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have been rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the reasons given by the learned court below for rejecting the applications, it is seen that the suit is pending since 2008. After framing of issues for more than four years the petitioner plaintiff sought for adjournment, did not lead any evidence and did not file any documents. It is also indicated that on more than two occasions similar amendment applications have been filed and they have been rejected. Now, again these applications have been filed wh...
Santosh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Santosh Kumar Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
W.P.NO.21478/12 07-01-2013 Shri Priyank Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Chourasia, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent no.2 on advance notice. Challenging the orders dated 07-12-2010 and 26-11-2012 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Hoshangabad rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 C.P.C.in the matter of summoning one Ramesh Prasad Sahu, a patwari for recording evidence, this petition has been filed. The petitioner is a plaintiff and has filed suit in question seeking relief of declaration and injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that he is owner of the land bearing KhaSr.No.180/2, area 7 acres and certain other land bearing KhaSr.No.180/4, area 7 acres situated in village Mahendrawadi, Tehsil Babai, District Hoshangabad. It was the case of the petitioner that defendant Santosh Kumar Agrawal in collusion with the revenue authorities got his name mutated in the revenue record and based...
Rajendradas Guru Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
M.Cr.C.No.14820/2012 07.1.2013 Shri Sanjay Seth, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pramod Kumar Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.32/2008 registered at Police Station State Economic Offences Bureau Jabalpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 409, 471 of I of IPC and Sections 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is hereby rejected. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Daman Kumar Mishra Vs. Government of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
1 MCC No.462/2007 Daman Kumar Mishra Government of India & others 7.1.2013 Smt.Shobha Menon, learned Sr.Advocate assisted by Ms.Surabhi Ahirkar, Counsel for petitioner. Shri K.N.Pethia, learned counsel for respondents. This review petition is directed against an order dated 13.11.2006 in W.P.No.14220/2006 by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.9.2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.485/2005 was dismissed. The point as has been raised by the learned counsel for petitioner is in respect of an admission made by the counsel for the petitioner in Para 22 of the order, so we find it appropriate to refer Para 22 of the order dated 13.11.2006, which reads thus:- 22. Though the concept and conception of applicability of natural justice vis-a-vis is punitive action has its own sacrosanctity, but Mr.Pethia would put forth that the cancellation of the selection would not have any impact or effect inasmuch as the...
M.C.Mittal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
R.P.NO.01/13 07-01-2013 Applicant in person. This application has been filed for review/recall of the order passed on 12-12-2012 in Review Petition No.933/12. The claim of the petitioner has already been considered and decision has been taken by this court on 16-08-2012 in W.P.No.8693/06. Pointing out certain objections of the petitioner review of this order passed in the writ petition was sought for and finding no error on the face of record the fiRs.Review Petition No.933/12(S) was dismissed by this court on 12-12-2012. not this second review petition is filed mainly on the same grounds which were taken up in the fiRs.review petition. Having heard the applicant in person and on going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the grounds raised by the petitioner in this review petition are not such on the basis of which review can be made by this court. The grounds are such which are to be considered by a higher court and therefore, the petition...
Shri Ram Parmar Vs. Mohd. Siddiqui
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
W.P.No.172/2013 7.1.2013: Shri S.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioners are defendants and are facing a suit filed by respondent No.1 for eviction and restoration of possession of a rented house. In the said proceeding at the stage of evidence, plaintiff-respondent filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 7 C.P.C.which has been allowed by the Court below and therefore, petitioners tenants are before this Court, challenging the order permitting amendment. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit in question claiming that the defendants herein namely petitioners are tenant of the house in question which was given to the plaintiff respondent No.1 on the basis of HIBANAMA executed by one Mohd. Ibrahim on 8.11.98. It is stated that after death of Mohd. Ibrahim the plaintiff has became owner of the property and the plaintiff is seeking restoration of possession and eviction of petitioners from the suit premises. Petitioners have denied the aforesaid contention and it i...
Extol College Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
W.P.No.90/2013 Extol College & anr. State of M.P.& others 7.1.2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, counsel for respondent no.3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the case of petitioners college is identical to the case of Rajeev Gandhi College and Chitransh Amulya Dutta P.G.College in whose matters in W.P.No.21486/2012 and W.P.No.22069/2012 ad- interim writ has been issued and all the students have been permitted to appear in the examination already going on. It is submitted that the students of petitioners college whose names are appearing in the list furnished by the college today, the examinations for the B.Co.couRs.are scheduled from 9th January, 2013 and they may be permitted to appear in the examination. Prayer is opposed by Shri Jaideep Singh and Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for respondents, who submitted that these students are not entitled to appear in the e...
Mukesh Usrete Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Mukesh Usrete versus State of M.P.& Ors.Writ Petition No.217 7. 1.2013: Shri Kamlesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Interalia contending that a case of theft is not being registered against respondent No.6 and no action is taken by the Police Authorities inspite of complaint made by the petitioner this writ petition is filed. If complaint is not registered with regard to offences committed by the said respondent, petitioner has a remedy to file a private complaint against respondent No.6 before the competent criminal jurisdiction i.e.the Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code 1993. Accordingly, as the law itself provides for a detailed procedure ventilating the grievance of petitioner, I see no reason to exercise the extraordinary power of a writ court, under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of remedy available under the Criminal Procedure Code. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
B.B.Saxena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Writ Petition No. 15828 Of 2006 (S) 7.1.2013 Shri R.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent State. Heard. Petitioner, retired Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, seeks direction to the respondents to finally settle his retiral dues which includes pension, death cum retirement gratuity and enhancement of surrendered leave. Evident it is from the material on record that, after retiring as Assistant Engineer from Rural Engineering Service with effect from 30.9.2002, the retiral dues of the petitioner has not been settled because of certain controversy regarding non clearance of Miscellaneous Advance of Rs.3,66,209/ withdrawn by the petitioner, treated as government dues on the petitioner liable to be recovered as per Rule 65 of M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976. Whereas, the petitioner submits that, he owes no dues to the government and the miscellaneou...
- ‹ Prev
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- Next ›
- Last »