Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Kamla Bai Bhilala Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 W.P.No.1855/2013 6.2.2013 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents on advance notice. Petitioner Daily Wager (Cook) employed in Government Anushuchit Jati Boys Hostel, Shahpur District Burhanpur since 1.7.1994 vide this writ petition seeks direction to the respondents to grant him regular pay scale in the light of circular dated 17.3.1978. It is urged that on the basis of aforesaid circular daily wage employee engaged in Tribal Welfare Department has been extended the benefit vide order passed in W.A.No.85/2011 (Dhanubai V. State of M.P and otheRs.decided on 27.8.2011 by Division Bench of this Court at Indore. It is contended that respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of decision rendered in Dhannubai (supra).Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents have no objection if direction is given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as per decision rendered...
Vidhyadhar Dwivedi Vs. Arun Kumar Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1...R.P.No.974 o06. 02.2013 Shri Jitendra Prasad, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, G.A.for the respondents. This review petition is directed against an order dated 4.10.2012 in S.A.No.50 of 2012 (Vidyadhar Dwivedi versus A.K.Tripathi and ORS.by which the second appeal was dismissed by the Single Bench at motion stage, as no substantial question of law was involved in the matter. As the learned Single Judge is not available at Jabalpur, as per Order 47 Rule 5 C.P.C., the matter is placed before the Division Bench. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the second appeal was preferred by the appellant who happens to be the plaintiff. Both the Court below, Trial Court and FiRs.Appellate Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the document on which the suit was filed was a forged document and in this regard concurrent findings were recorded by the court below. On the aforesaid ground no case for decl...
Rajnath Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Rajnath Singh versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.16938 06. 02.2013 : Shri D.S.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that encroachment has been established and appeal filed by the encroacher has also been dismissed by the S.D.O., as is evident from averments made by the respondents in para-8 of the reply, the Collector concerned is directed to look into the matter, on petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, the Collector concerned shall took steps for removing the encroachment in accordance to law after taking note of orders passed by the Tahsildar and the S.D.O.Necessary action be taken within three months after hearing all concerned. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. ( Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*...
Smt. Anita Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Petition No :8574. / 2012 Smt. Anita Pandey versus State of MP and others 06.02.2013. Shri Alok Pathak for the petitioner. Challenging the action of respondents 1, 2 and 3 in not registering the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondents 4 to 6, for offence under sections 418, 420, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B read with section 34 of the IPC and contending that the matter is not being investigated properly, this writ petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioner that on 29.6.1991, between the petitioner and respondent No.6 a deed of partnership was executed for starting a business for manufacturing of PVC and Plastic Foot wears and House Hold Appliances. In the execution of business as certain disputes have arisen, it seems that a complaint has been made by the petitioner with regard to cheating and not as the case is not being investigated by the police authorities, this writ petition is filed. Keeping in view the nature of allegations levelled, I am not inclined to i...
Yashwant Singh Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Petition No.1842/2013 06.02.2013 Shri Madhur Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents. Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the interim order dated 7.7.2003 passed in writ petition No.3777/2003, the respondents have issued the impugned show cause notice dated 03.12.2012. It is further submitted that the writ petition involving similar issue has been entertained and interim relief has been granted. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with a view to maintain parity, it is directed that no final order shall be passed in pursuance to notice dated 03.12.2012. Let the writ petition be listed along with writ petitions No.21242/2012 and 20937/2012 for analogous hearing. Certified...
Gurumukh Das Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 W.P.No.1679/2011 6.2.2013 Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.D.Jain, learned Advocate General with Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, for the respondents. Challenging the order passed by the Excise Commissioner, Gwalior on 21.8.2009 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. It is seen that in the year 1996 certain orders were passed with regard to charging of excise duty on liquor. Petitioner and one Shri Bhupendra Pal Singh Bhatia filed writ petitions before this Court. Writ petitions were decided by a Single Bench of this Court and thereafter both Shri Bhupendra Pal Singh Bhatia and the petitioner herein M/s Mahakuashal Wine Agency challenged the order passed by the learned Single Bench by filing LPA under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. L.P.A.No.35/99 was registered in the case filed by Shri Bhupendra Pal Singh Bhatia and LPA No.47/99 was registered in the case of present petitioner M/s Mahakaushal Wine Agency. The Division...
Santosh Kumar Vs. Deepesh Shroti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
FIRs.APPEAL No.75/20106. 02.2013 Shri Priyank Khandelwal, learned Counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notices of this appeal and I.A.No.1043/2013 to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. Send for the record of the Court below. In the meanwhile, on deposit of 50% of the amount directed to be refunded to the plaintiff/respondent, in the C.C.D.within a period of one month from today, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed. However, the amount so deposited by the appellant shall not be disbursed to the respondent/plaintiff until further orders of this Court. List immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Kamta Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR D.B. : Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti & Hon. Smt. Justice Vimla Jain WRIT APPEAL NO.1254 OF 200.Kamta Prasad Pandey, S/o Shri Ramayan Prasad Pandey, Aged about 52 years, Warden (Voluntarily Retired), Central Jail, Jabalpur, R/o Village Nadna, District Rewa (MP) Appellant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Rajesh Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondent-State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT (06/02/2013) Smt Vimla Jain, J.Being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 10/11/2006 passed in MCC No.2573/2005 against the order dated 29/10/2005 passed in Writ Petition No.22346/2003, the present intraCourt appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 2 ...
Subhash Patil Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 W.P.No.1856/2013 6.2.2013 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents on advance notice. Petitioner Daily Wage (Chowkidar) employed in Government Pre Matric Hostel, Shikarpur since 1.12.2000 vide this writ petition seeks direction to the respondents to grant him regular pay scale in the light of circular dated 17.3.1978. It is urged that on the basis of aforesaid circular daily wage employee engaged in Tribal Welfare Department has been extended the benefit vide order passed in W.A.No.85/2011 (Dhanubai V. State of M.P and otheRs.decided on 27.8.2011 by Division Bench of this Court at Indore. It is contended that respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of decision rendered in Dhannubai (supra).Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents have no objection if direction is given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as per decision rendered by Division Bench of ...
Mahendra Singh Bundela Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 W.P.No.9953/2012 6.2.2013 Shri Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order dated 3.3.2012 passed by the State Government granting prospective lease to the petitioner, Even though Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel has raised a preliminary objection with regard to dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that earlier also for similar relief, another writ petition bearing NO.9952/2012 has been filed and the same is dismissed and Shri Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the writ petition was filed with regard to grant of mining lease and present writ petition is filed for grant of prospective lease and therefore, the subject matter are different but the fact remains that against the action impugned for grant of lease, petitioner has remedy of appeal under Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- Next ›
- Last »