Madhya Pradesh Court October 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.
ishaq Ahmed Vs. Project Director Project Implementation Unit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
1 W.P.No.15736/2013. 3.10.2013. Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri A.K.Chourasiya, learned G.A.for the respondent No.3. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.2013 (Ann. P.7).passed by 3rd Civil Judge, class-II, Betul in C.S.No.68-A/2013, where by their application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for issuing additional direction to the appointed Commissioner for inspecting the site and submitting the report has been dismissed. In the couRs.of the argument on asking the petitioner's counsel whether the Commissioner has inspected the site under execution of the Commissioner warrant or not, on which he fairly submits that inspection has been made and report has also been submitted by the Commissioner before the trial Court and now the case is fixed for filing the objection of the parties on 7.10.2013. In view of such statu...
Ashish Kumar Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16395/2013 1 04.10.2013 Shri Amit Kumar Bajpai, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the c...
Bhaskar Mishra Vs. Smt. Shailja Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
1 M.Cr.C. No.6199 of 2013 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J Misc. Criminal Case No.6199/2013 Bhaskar Mishra & others. -Vs- Smt. Shailja Mishra. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri U.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Dilip Pandey, Advocate for the respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 4th day of October, 2013) By the instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the proceedings of the Misc. Case No.16/2013 pending before the JMFC Rewa relating to Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Special Act.).2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent is the wife of the applicant No.1 Bhaskar Mishra, whereas the remaining applicants are relatives of Bhaskar Mishra. A dispute arose between the parties a...
Pandit Ram Rattan Upadhyay Higher Secondary School Kondiya, Distt. Kat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Writ Petition No.15372 of 2005 Sudesh Kumar Mehta Versus Public Works Department, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal and three others ___________________________________________________ Shri Shashank Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. ___________________________________________________ PRESENT : Honble Shri R.S. Jha, J.: ORDER (01-10-2013) The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief of quashing notices of recovery, dated 14-9-1992 (Annexure P-5), 10-12-1992 (Annexure P-6) and 6-11-2005 (Annexure P-7).2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was awarded a contract for constructing a building in the year 1986. The work allotted to the petitioner was required to be completed in the year 1989. The dispute arose on account of the fact when the work was not completed within the stipulated period. The respondents consequently terminated -( 2...
Salim Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
WRIT PETITION No.15873/2013 1 04.10.2013 Shri Gyanendra Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the cas...
Sunil Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
1 W.P.No.15942/2013. 4.10.2013. Shri Prashant Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned GA for the respondent No.1to 4. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ against the respondents for following reliefs. 1. That by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to call the records relating to the case of the petitioner. 2. That by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to 3 to take strict action against respondent No.4 and 5 for illegal operation of the buses. 3. That by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1,2 and 4 to provide the adequate compensation to the petitioner, as the petitioner has lost his wife due to negligence and illegal act of the respondent No.4 ...
Damodar Vs. Pradeep Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
1 W.P.No.16241/2013. 4.10.2013. Shri J.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 26.4.2013 (Ann. P.13) and order dated 16.8.2013 (Ann. P.16) passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Sagar in Co.No.17-A/2010, whereby his application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC for producing some certified copy of KhaSr.and order of some Election Commission and the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint with respect of aforesaid KhaSr.have been dismissed respectively by the above mentioned ordeRs.Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view his arguments after perusing the papers placed on record, I have found that the impugned orders have been passed under the vested discretionary jurisdiction of such Court. In such premises the impugned order does not require any interference under the superintending jurisdiction of this court vested under Article 2...
Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Gram Barhi Vs. Ashok Singh Parihar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
Conc. No.2080/2013 (Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Barhi, District Katni .Vs..Ashok Singh Parihar & another) 04-10-2013 Heard Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging non- compliance and disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19398/2012, dated 27-2-2013, whereby, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Collector, Katni, with an observation to the effect that the Collector, Katni shall make all endeavour to consider and decide the representation within 30 days from the receipt of fresh representation alongwith the order passed today. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he had thereafter approached the authority by filing Annexure C-2, dated 8-3-2013 but no decision thereon has been taken by the respondent/authorities till today. Hence ...
D.N. Kaol Vs. Arvind Pathak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.6104/2012 04.10.2013 Shri Vijay K. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S.Rajput, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 17.4.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No.10/2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chhattarpur whereby the order dated 2.2.2011 passed by the learned CJ.Chhattarpur in Complaint Case No.158/2011 was confirmed by which the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as N.I.Act) was registered. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed a criminal complaint against the applicant that the applicant issued a cheque in favour of the respondent which was dishonoured. After giving a notice of demand the applicant did not pay the amount of the cheque. Hence the complaint was registered vide order dated 2.2.2011 by the CJ.Chhattarpur. The Criminal Revision filed by the applicant was also dismissed. The learned counsel f...
Bhagwant Rao Wagadre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
1 Writ Petition No.16558/2013 04.10.2013 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents on advance notice. Heard. Rejection of candidature for appointment of Area Education Officer on the ground that the petitioner do not possess requisite year of teaching experience is cause for present writ petition. That the cadre of Area Education Officer came to be created by causing amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982. The posts are to be filled up through a limited Departmental Examination from amongst Teachers (Upper Division TeacheRs.Head Masters of Middle School/Adhyapak of Local Bodies. The minimum educational qualifications and other requisitions as per amendments in Rule 1982 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 22.08.2013 are Graduate Degree from recognized University and B.Ed. which should be recognized by the National Council for Teach...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »