Madhya Pradesh Court February 2013 Judgments
J.S. Parihar Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Writ Petition No.1813/2013 28.02.2013 MRS.Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the return shall be filed by tomorrow i.e.01.03.2013. Heard on the question of interim relief. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the writ petition involving similar issue has already been entertained and the interim order has been granted. In this connection, learned Senior Counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 10.09.2012 passed in W.P.No.14975/2012. In view of aforesaid statement and with a view to maintain parity, the operation of impugned order dated 31.7.2012 as well as order dated 10.1.2012 shall remain stayed and no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till next date of hearing. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed on 12.03.2013. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. H.K.Kalchuri Education Trust 31 Shyamla ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
MCC No.176/13 28.02.13. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Mukesh Agarwal, learned counsel present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent. Considering the controveRs.involved in this case, with the consent of parties the matter is heard. IA No.2411/13 for condonation of delay in filing this restoration application. For the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit of Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate, we find it appropriate to condone the delay in filing of this restoration application. Accordingly, IA No.2411/13 is allowed. Delay in filing this restoration application is condoned. MCC No.176/13 for restoration of ITA No.151/11. The prayer made in the application is not opposed by the respondent. Considering the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit of Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate, we find it appropriate to allow this application and accordingly prayer made in the application is allowed. Office is directed to restore ITA No.151/1...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radha Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Writ Petition No.2838/2013 28.02.2013 Mr.Gajendra Tamsikar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 11.2.2013, by which the petitioner, who is Auxiliary NuRs.cum Midwife has been transferred from Primary Health Centre, Bhagwa to Sub Health Centre, Bumnaur and the respondent No.5 has been posted in place of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of transfer has been passed in violation of transfer policy with a view to accommodate respondent No.5. It is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Chaurasia Vs. City of Jabalpur Corporation Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 W.P.No.2862/2013 28/2/2013 Shri Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.4. Petitioners herein are tenants of respondent No.4 Shri Devendra Singh Baghel who is owner of a building bearing No.102 situated in Bansal Building, Shastri Bridge Road, Choti Line Phatak, Jabalpur. According to the petitioners they are in possession of various shops which are available in the premises and are tenants of respondent No.4. It is stated that Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur is undertaking broadening and widening of the road popularly known as "Chhoti Line road", near Shastri Bridge and for the said purpose, they are proposed to demolish Bansal building without conducting any proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, petitioners right to continue in occupation as tenants would be adversely effected and therefore, seeking a direction to restrain the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Devendra Kumar Barasakar Vs. Sanjay Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Conc.P.No ::1464. / 2012 Devendra Kumar Barasakar versus Sanjay Shukla and others 28.02.2013. Shri Ashish Tiwari for the applicant. Shri Manas Verma for the non-applicants. Keeping in view the nature of the order passed in the writ petition, which is only to the effect that the representation be decided and considering the fact that the non-applicants have rejected the claim of the applicant vide Annexure R/1 on 28.9.2012, on the ground that applicant is unauthorizedly absent and not entitled for salary, no case is made out for initiating any action for contempt. In case applicant has any grievance with regard to the manner in which his claim is considered, he may challenge the subsequent order afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, the non- applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the application dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Vs. K.K. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Vijay Kumar versus Shri K.K.Singh & Others Conc. No.1905 28. 2.2013: Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Shri Vivek Agrawal and Shri Rohini Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. On 28.9.2011 W.P.No.16377/2011 was disposed of by this Court without notice to the respondents and without hearing them and the only direction issued was that claim of petitioner for regularization be considered in accordance to the circular Annexure P-2 that was filed in the original writ petition and decision taken. Respondents have filed the return and it is brought to the notice of this Court in the return that no such rule as claimed by the petitioner and filed as Annexure P-2 in the writ petition is available, no such provision has been incorporated by the department and on examination as it was found that no such statutory rule is available. However, by filing rejoinder petitioner has brought on record orders passed on 29.6.1998 and 5.12.2001 Annexu...
Tag this Judgment!Shivkant Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Writ Petition No.3172/2013 28.02.2013 Mr.Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 19.02.2013, by which the representation submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 31.12.2012 passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22142/2012 has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting the attention of this Court to the aforesaid order submitted that while disposing of the writ petition, a Bench of this Court had observed that while deciding the representation, the respondents shall consider whether there are vacancies in any of the district adjoining to Katni and if, the administrative exigency so permits, whether it is possible to accommodate the petitioner in a district situate near to Katni. However, the aforesaid aspect has not been ...
Tag this Judgment!Mumtazul Karim Vs. Smt. Vikarun Nisha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 F.A.No.196/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava First Appeal No.196/1996 (Date of filing suit :05.02.1993) APPELLANT: Mumtazul Karim, S/o Abdul Kaleem, Agriculturist R/o Gram Mehgaon, P.O. Gangerda Tahsil and District Seoni(M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: Smt. Vikarun Nisha, W/o Mumtazul Karim, R/o Dalsagar Ward, Seoni (M.P.). Shri Adil Usmani, for the appellant. None for the respondent. JUDGMENT (28.02.2013) 1. This first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been filed by defendant against judgment and decree of divorce dated 08.03.1996, passed by learned District Judge, Seoni in C.S. No.11-A/1993.2. In brief, the case of plaintiff-respondent is that her husband (defendant) is Sunni Musalman and similarly she 2 F.A.No.196/1996 too is Summi Musalman and are being governed by Hanfi law. In Muslim Community, the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (in short the Act of 1939) is applicable. The marriage between plaintiff and defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.939/2013 28.2.2013 Shri Narendra Nikhare, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 15.12.2012 in connection with Crime No.255/2012 registered at Police Station Sultanpur District Raisen for offence punishable under Sections 302, 34, 201 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not the main accused in the case. Nothing is alleged against this applicant in regard to committing murder of Inder Singh. The only allegation against this applicant is that he was involved in the incident. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties along with facts and circumst...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Narayan Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2581/2013 28.2.2013 Shri H.S.Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.4742/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.25/2013 registered at P.S.Anuppur for the offence punishable under section 354, 452 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Except the offence under Section 452 of the IPC, remaining offences are bailable. As per prosecution, nothing has been alleged against the applicant that he entered into the house to commit the offence. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »