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.
Raja Ram Vs. ChaIn Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
1 S.A.No.1057/1998 Raja Ram versus Chain Singh & Ors 02.01.2013 Heard Shri Abhishek Gulatee learned counsel for the appellant, on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the FiRs.Appellate Court passed in FiRs.Appeal No.5A/95 dated 24.8.1998 wherein the judgment and decree dated 28.6.1994 passed in Civil Suit No.28A/91 by the Fifth Civil Judge Class-II, Sehore has been set aside. It is submitted that the appellant Plaintiff had filed a suit claiming easementary rights against the defendants as they had constructed a wall on the open land between the plaintiff's house and Ramdeo Mandir as a result of which the easementary rights of the appellant to air and light as well as of passage was obstructed. It is alleged that the appellant plaintiff had been using the right to way for the last 100 years which has not been obstructed by the impugned construction of the wall. It is stated that the trial court appointed a Commiss...
Maa Durga Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Bihta Vs. the ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
WRIT APPEAL No.750/20102. 01.2013 Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rohit Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. This writ appeal has been filed under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the order dated 05.07.2011 passed in W.P.No.5183/2009 by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the shop in question was required to be allotted only and only to the Cooperative Societies like appellant and this being the reason, the order was passed by the State Government. In complete violation of the orders of the State Government, instructions were issued by the Collector, Satna directing that the shop attached to Women Multipurpose Cooperative Societies be immediately removed and be given to the allottee Cooperative Societies. It is contended ...
Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs. the State of Madhya P ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
WRIT APPEAL No.749/20102. 01.2013 Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rohit Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. This writ appeal has been filed under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the order dated 05.07.2011 passed in W.P.No.5182/2009 by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the shop in question was required to be allotted only and only to the Cooperative Societies like appellant and this being the reason, the order was passed by the State Government. In complete violation of the orders of the State Government, instructions were issued by the Collector, Satna directing that the shop attached to Women Multipurpose Cooperative Societies be immediately removed and be given to the allottee Cooperative Societies. It is contended ...
Shriniwas Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Writ Petition No.21979/2012 2.1.2013 Shri K.P.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Heard on admission. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed that respondent nos.1 to 4 be directed to take appropriate action against respondent no.5 for committing fraud with him. According to the petitioner, on 16.3.1993 he became a member of the Mandakini Housing Society of which respondent no.5 is Chairman. The petitioner submits that he had also deposited Rs.32,000/- for the allotment of plot but respondent no.5 despite repeated promises has failed to allot the plot. The petitioner claims to have sent a written complaint dated 23.4.2012, Annexure P7, to respondent nos.3 and 4 for taking appropriate action against respondent no.5 but without any response. As regards dispute with respondent no.5 regarding allotment of plot, the petitioner is at liberty to file a petition under section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Registrar. For the relief regarding direction...
Ganesh Machhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Writ Petition No.22086/2012 Ganesh Machhiya versus State of MP and others 02.01.2013. Shri K.B.Vishwakarma for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Government Advocate, for the State/respondents. As the petitioner has a remedy of challenging the impugned order by filing an appeal under section 83 of the MP Wakf Adhiniyam before the appropriate Tribunal, a petition directly before this Court is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a proper appeal before the Tribunal and in case an appeal is filed, the Tribunal shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law at an earlier date. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Nirmala Devei @ Nand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Nirmala Devi @ Nand versus State & ORS.Writ Petition No.21317 2. 1.2013: Shri Bhupendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging an interlocutory order passed by respondent No.2 granting ex-parte stay to respondent No.6 and otheRs.this writ petition has been filed. It is stated by petitioner that petitioner has filed a caveat application and inspite thereof ex-parte stay has been granted. If ex-parte stay has been granted inspite of caveat application filed by petitioner, petitioner should at the fiRs.instance filed an application for vacating stay and seek for interference of the stay application inspite of rushing to this Court challenging ex-parte interlocutory order. Accordingly, it is directed that in case petitioner filed an application for vacating stay before respondent No.2, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the application for vacating stay in accordnace to law after hearing all concerned wit...
Suresh Kumar Pithode Vs. Western Coalfields Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
W.A.No.1107/2011 02.01.2013 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, heard finally. The appellant calls in question the order dated 29.9.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.16587/2011, by which his writ petition has been disposed of giving liberty to the appellant/petitioner to assail the order of the Age Determination Committee before the appropriate Industrial Forum. It is contended that such a dispute was not required to be raised before the Industrial Court in view of the fact that the report of the Age Determination Committee was never made available to the appellant/ petitioner. On the other hand, the Age Determination Committee has unilaterally given an opinion on the basis of medical examination that the age of the appellant/ petitioner as on 2.9.2011 was 60 yeaRs.This being so, it is contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is bad in law. It is co...
Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
W.A.No.208/2012 02.01.2013 Shri N.S.Ruprah with Shri S.D.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.S.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from error of law wherein he has observed that the name of the petitioner/appellant finds mention at Sr.No.124 in the voters list of the Village, Malka published on 01-01-2004 and her name also finds mention at Sr.No.296 in the Rozgar Guarantee Register of the Gram Panchayat, Malka, Janpad Panchayat, Naogaon. Apart from this, name of the father-in-law of the appellant also finds mention in that voters list. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the learned Single Judge has further observed that the name of the petitioner/appellant finds mention in the Voters list of the Village Malka and also in the Village, Pehrapurwa. We find that the obser...
Mahila Jan Kalyan Swa Sahayata Samooh Bhelki Vs. the State of Madhya P ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Writ Petition No.21140/2012 2.1.2013 Shri P.K.Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Heard on admission. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of interim stay order dated 12.4.2012, Annexure P6, passed by the Additional Collector, District Sidhi. The petitioner is a self-help group of women and distributes mid-day meal to different Government schools in district Sidhi. Respondent no.4 is also a self-help group of women and it too distributes mid-day meal to such schools. Respondent no.4 was allotted the work of supplying mid-day meal to Government Middle and Primary schools, Bhelki 822. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi, however vide order dated 3.4.2012, Annexure P2, allotted the work of supplying mid-day meal to these schools to the petitioner. Aggrieved, respondent no.4 has filed an appeal under section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Ad...
Nand Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
1 W.P.No.21661/2012 W.P.No.21661/2012 02.1.2013 Shri Subash Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. Heard. Petitioner by way of present petition seeks direction to the respondents to grant benefit of second kramonnati w.e.f 1999 as has been held in case of Smt Prerna Korane w/o Shri Pramod Koranne v. State of M.P.and otheRs.in W.P.No.6773/06, decided on 26.4.07. In view of nature of relief as has been sought for by the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for benefit of second kramonnati in furtherance to order passed in Smt. Prerna (supra) and settle the claim within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. In case the petitioner is not found eligible, respondents are directed to pass a speaking order and communicate it to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of finally in above terms . No costs. Certified copy as per...
- ‹ Prev
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 92
- 93
- Next ›
- Last »