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.
Union of India Vs. Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Lt ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
W.P.No.21373/2012 7.1.2013: Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. This is a dispute between the Railway administration and respondent Electricity Supply Company with regard to recovery of electricity dues. Certain proceedings were initiated against the railway administration by the respondent Company which ultimately culminated in an order being passed directing the Railway administration to pay a sum of Rs.72,46,554/- as electricity duty. Aggrieved by imposition of this duty, the Railway administration preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the statutory appellate authority and the appeal having been dismissed on the ground of it being time barred by a period of 4 and a half months (the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay) and refusal of the appellate authority to condone the delay, this petition is filed. Pointing out various administration process which were ...
Arvind Kumar @ Arun Vs. Rajkumar @ Raju
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
W.P.No.19366/2012 7.1.2013: Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner met with an accident and sustained injury. As a result he raised a claim by filing an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni. The claim has been allowed and a compensation of Rs.1,20,625/- has been granted to the applicant. Challenging the award an appeal has been filed by the Insurance company namely respondent No.3 before this Court under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehecles Act. The said appeal is registered as M.A.No.1796/2012 and is still pending. However, in the pending appeal an interim order was passed on 3.9.2012 directing the Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the amount awarded. Accordingly, the insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs.70,019/-. Grievance of the petitioner is that a prayer made by the petitioner for withdrawal of the aforesaid amount has been rejected by the Court below mainly on the ground that in the interim order passed by this Court in ...
M/S G.E.i. Industrial Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner C and C. Excise
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
C.Ex.A.No.09/2012 07.01.2013 Shri Z.U.Alvi, Advocate with Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the respondent. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the CustoMs.Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi erred in not granting exemption from deposit of the Excise Duty for entertaining Appeal Nos.E/1604-1605 of 2011 filed by the appellant, while in the matter of the appellant itself for another Financial Year, the same Tribunal had granted exemption in Appeal No.1748/2011 to the appellant from deposit of the Excise Duty for entertaining the appeal and has not followed the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gammon India LTD.versus Commissioner of CustoMs.Mumbai [2011 (269) E.L.T.289 (S.C.)].?." Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri Dharmadhikari. Be listed for hearing on 31st January, 2013. Till next date of hearing, the Tribunal is directed not to dism...
Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
1...W.P.No.1359 o07. 01.2013 Ms.Chittarupa Palit, present for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. G.A.for the respondent No.1. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri H.K.Upadhyaya, Counsel for respondent No.2 and 3. Shri Riaz Mohd. Counsel for intervenor, Municipal Corporation, Indore. I.A.No.6400/12 : an application for impleading Union Ministry of Environment and Forests as respondent No.4: It is submitted that for just decision of this case, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests is necessary party and may be permitted to implead as respondent No.4. It is also submitted that the project of the respondents was cleared by the said Ministry so impleadment of the Ministry is necessary in the case. The prayer is opposed by Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on the ground that the description of the proposed respondent is not correct. The proper party is Union of India through the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and only with ...
Ravindra College Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
W.P.No.49/2013 Ravindra College State of M.P.& others 7.1.2013 Shri Manot Sharma with Shri Dharmendra Soni, counsel for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, counsel for respondent no.3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the case of petitioner 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 petitioner's college whose names are appearing on page 88 of the petition, the examinations for the couRs.of B.Com., 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 appea...
Vinod Vaish Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 3[1]
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
1 W.P.No.18946/2006(s) 07.01.2013 Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. Heard. Petitioner, retired Timekeeper, Public Works Department vide this petition seeks direction to the respondents to grant benefit of two Krammonati in pursuance to circular dated 17.3.1999/19.4.1999 and 7/2/2001. Undisputed facts culled out from the record are that, the petitioner having being engaged as Time Keeper on daily wages on 1.7.1992 was brought on the work charged and contingency paid establishment and having worked for 34 years retired as Time Keeper, Work charged Establishment, w.e.f 30.11.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. The case of the petitioner is despite of having worked for 34 yeaRs.he was not given any career advancement. It is urged that he is entitled for grant of Krammonati as per policy of the respondent circulated on 17.3.99/19.4.99 and reiterated vide letter dated 7.2.2001. The petitioner accordingly...
Smt.Deepti Gupta Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR First Appeal No.854/2012 Smt. Deepti Gupta..Appellant Versus Satish Kumar Gupta.Respondent For the appellant : Shri Prashant Dubey, Advocate. For the respondent: None, though served. ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE U. C. MAHESHWARI ****** JUDGMENT (7.1.2013) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by : Ajit Singh, J.This appeal is by the wife against the judgment dated 19.7.2012 whereby her petition under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act.) has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.2. The wife was married to respondent-husband on 29.11.2011. She lived with him up to 14.1.2012. The husband brought the wife to her maternal home at Garha Kota, District Sagar, where he lived with her for two days. According to the wife, the husband then left her there alone and did not return to take her. The wife also stated the fact that husband had been suffering from cancer even p...
Bhagwandas Vs. Suresh Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Writ Petition No :96. 2013 Bhagwandas versus Suresh Prasad and otheRs.07.01.2013. Shri A.P.Shah for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order-dated 29.11.2012, passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Singrouli in Civil Suit No.35-A/2010, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner, who is plaintiff in the suit, under section 45 of the Evidence Act, this writ petition has been filed. The suit in question has been filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and possession. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for requisition of certain documents, which included a will said to have been executed by one Shri Ramkhilawan, to examine the thumb impression of Shri Ramkhilawan on the will. The application in question for getting the thumb impression of Shri Ramkhilawan examined having been rejected, petitioner is before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that as examination of the thumb ...
S.N. Sunderson and Company Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
S.N.Sunderson and Company versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.25 7. 1.2013: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease in the area in question is still pending, as is evident from Annexure P-4 and no decision is taken. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation of petitioner, as contained in Annexure P-4 dated 20.10.2007 in accordance to law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of case, it is exclusively on the respondents to decide the same in accordance to law. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Shiva Kesharwani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
1 Cr.R. No.1405 of 2012 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1405/2012 Shiva Keshwarwani & another. -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.K.Soni, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 7th day of January, 2013) This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants against the order dated 30.5.2012 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Special Act.), Jabalpur, whereby the charge of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act was framed against the applicants.2. The brief facts of the case relating to the present revision are that the complainant had lodged an FIR before the concerned Police Station tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- Next ›
- Last »