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.
Narendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Narendra Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.21014 2. 1.2013: Shri T.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order an objection raised by petitioner under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act has been rejected and, therefore, petitioner has directly filed this writ petition. After objection under Section 9 is rejected proceedings are held in accordance to provisions of Land Acquisition Act and petitioner has remedy of raising objection before the competent authority under the said act, therefore, a writ petition challenging rejection of objection under Section 9 is not maintainable. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of remedy available under the Land Acquisition Act or statutory provisions available, this writ petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Raj Kumar Bhagat Vs. Abhishek Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Raj Kumar Bhagat versus Abhishek Tiwari & ORS.Writ Petition No.18573 2. 1.2013: Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order Annexure P-3 dated 16.10.2012 by which two applications filed by petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC for deleting name of Tehsildar, who is respondent No.3 has been rejected and another application filed by petitioner for amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 has been rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner has filed suit in question against the defendant. In the said suit Tehsildar has been impleaded as respondent No.3, applicant wanted to delete the name of Tehsildar on the ground that he has improperly joined as respondent no.3 and also wanted to made certain amendment in para 8 of the plaint. So far as deleting the name of Tehsildar is concerned, Court has held that Tehsildar is necessary party and applicatio...
Smt Ullan Bai Loniya Vs. Smt Prema Devi Loniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Writ Petition No.13125/2012 Smt. Ullan Bai Loniya versus Smt. Prema Devi and others 02.01.2013. Shri Jagtendra Prasad for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Rusia for the respondents. Challenging the interim order passed by the 4th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No.49/2012 vide Annexure P/1 on 13.7.2012, granting permission to respondent Smt. Prema Devi to sell certain portion of the land as indicated in paragraph 16 of the impugned order, to the extent of 0.190 Hectares, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Respondent Smt. Prema Devi is defendant in the suit filed by plaintiff Smt. Ullan Bai Loniyha and others with regard to the property in question. Initially it seems that certain injunction was granted in a proceeding held under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the matter of the property in question and the case came to this Court in W.P.No.13337/2007. The said writ petition was filed by the present non-applicant Smt. Prema D...
Shekhanlal Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
1 W.P.No.21717/2012 W.P.No.21717/2012 02.1.2013 Shri C. Dubey, 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 rul...
Swargiya Shri Uma Datt Shiksha Samiti Shukla Colony Dekha Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Writ Petition No.21832/2012 2.1.2013 Shri Prabhat Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, Government Advocate, for the State/ respondent no.1. Petitioner no.1 Uma Datt Shiksha Samiti, Shukla Colony, Dhekha, District Rewa, is an educational society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Petitioner no.2 is the Principal of same school being run by petitioner no.1. According to the petitioneRs.they had applied for recognition of school for XIth Class in the beginning of 2011 in a prescribed form and despite removal of all deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee of respondent no.2, no final decision has been taken on their application. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to decide their application for recognition of school for XIth Class. The petitioners also submit that the students were admitted by them in XIth Class in expectation of recognition. Whether the petitioners could have admitted...
S R Thakre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.213/2010 02.01.2013 Shri J.P.Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. Admit. With the consent of parties the matter is heard finally. There is merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that though there is a finding that the appellant has worked on the post of Headmaster w.e.f.1.4.1981 no reasons have been specifically assigned for granting only notional benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.925- 1500 along with increments w.e.f.1.4.1981. However, Shri Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the appellant has infact not worked on the substantive post of Headmaster w.e.f.1.4.1981. This contention is contrary to the finding which is not sought to be objected to on the ground that the respondents had not filed their additional return pointing out how the appellant had not worked. Having regard to the overall circumstances of the case we consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to set...
Heera Lal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Heera Lal versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19282 2. 1.2013: Shri B.K.Bais, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the Collector Singrauli, rejecting prayer made by petitioner for reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge concerned. The question involved in this writ petition with regard to jurisdiction of the Collector to reject the prayer made in an application under Section 18 is already considered and decided by this Court in various cases and it has been held by this Court that Collector has no jurisdiction to reject the application under Section 18, it has to be placed before the appropriate court and it is for the court to pass orders on the said application. In this regard Shri B.K.Bais, has brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 29.11.2011 passed in W.P.No.17030/2011 (Satru...
Smt. Triveni Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Writ Petition No. 21871 Of 2012 2.1.2013 Shri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner, Assistant Teacher under School Education Department, vide this petition seeks direction to the respondents to pay the arrears from the date of initial appointment and to regularize the petitioner from her initial date of appointment. The relief has been sought on the strength of decision rendered in Smt. Usha Ranawat v. State of M.P. and others (W.A. No. 346/2008) decided on 18.12.2008. Since parity is being claimed; instead of dwelling upon the merit of the matter, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner at par with petitioner in Smt. Usha Ranawat (supra) and take a decision within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order...
Prashant Thapak Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
Prashant Thapak versus State Bank of India & Anr. Writ Petition No.21120 2. 1.2013: Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging a notice issued to petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Petitioner has a right to file an objection before the competent authority and after objection is decided petitioner has remedy under Section 17 of the Debt Recovery Act of filing an appeal and, therefore, writ petition directly before this Court challenging proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act is not maintainable. Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of remedy available under the statue. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Prakash Metal Craft Industries Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2013
1...VATA No.27 o02. 01.2013 Dr. Krishna Kumar Dubey, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A.for the respondents. I.A.14670 of 12 for condonation of delay. It is stated that there is delay of 4 days in filing this appeal. Considering the short period of delay and reasons assigned in the application, supported by an affidavit and documentary evidence and to the fact that the prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel for the State, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Heard on admission. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Board is right in law and had valid material to hold that Tractor traileRs.sold by the appellant were No.'for use in agricultural purpose' and not entitled for examination from payment of tax under Entry No.1 of Schedule I of the Act, read with Entry No.55 of notification not A-3-46-2000/ST-V(52) dated 17.7.2000, being 'Tractor trailers for use in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 93
- Next ›
- Last »