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.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Prabhat Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
F.A.No.73/2013 6.2.2013 Shri Pranay Verma, counsel for appellants. Shri Neeraj Vegad, counsel for respondent nos.1, 3 & 4. Heard on admission. This appeal is admitted for final hearing. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 3 & 4 is accepted by Shri Vegad. Appellants to serve copy of memo of appeal to Shri Vegad, if already not served. Issue notice to respondent no.2. Steps within a period of three working days by Regd. A/D post. Notice be made returnable within four weeks. I.A.No.1013/2013 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C.Notice of this application is accepted by Shri Vegad. He prays for two weeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Issue notice of this application to respondent no.2 also. Steps within a period of three working days by speed post. Notice be made returnable before the next date of hearing. Considering the finding recorded by the trial Court in para 35 of the impugned judgment, we direct that till next date of hearing, status quo as on today, in respect of the posses...
Jaipal Singh Patiyal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1422/2013 6.2.2013 Shri L.C.Chourasiya, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Pratibha Mishra, PL for the State. Arguments heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for giving one more opportunity for appearance before the trial Court under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the interest of justice. The trial Court has initiated the proceeding under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.for attachment of petitioner's immovable property as he has not appeared before the trial Court. He could not be arrested in execution of the arrest warrant. Still after publication of proclamation, petitioner has not appeared before the trial Court. There is no requirement for giving any opportunity to the petitioner for appearance before the trial Court. The petitioner may appear before the trial Court and pray for dropping the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.by mentioning sufficient reasons. Looking to over all facts and circumstance...
Piyush Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.255/2013 6.2.2013 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.K.Lakhera, PL for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, counsel for the respondent No.2. Arguments heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR dated 10.6.2011 registered as Crime No.529/2011 by the police of Police Station Kotwali, District Damoh for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC on the ground that petitioner has submitted the forged documents for appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. Learned counsel for the University/respondent No.2 has submitted that due to oversight of university authorities, it has been informed to the concerned department that documents submitted by the petitioner are forged as there were other persons of similar name. not on perusal of record, the university authority has informed the petitioner that the documents submitted by him are not forge...
M/S. S.K. JaIn Vs. Chief Executive Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Petition No.21062/2012 6.2.2013 Shri P.K.Saxena, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Vipin Mishra, Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner is a contractor and claims himself to have been carrying out various Central and State Governments projects particularly regarding upgradation and construction of roads. Respondent Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority (in short, the Authority.) is an agency of the Government of Madhya Pradesh under the Road Development Department. The petitioner entered into number of agreements with the Authority for construction of various roads vides different packages under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana. For each package separate independent contract was entered into between them having no inter-se relation with the contracts of other packages. The main grievance of petitioner is that the Authority in view of memo dated 26.2.2011, Annexure P1, has illegally withheld the payment of amount of contract due to the termination of contrac...
Shyamlal Thakur Vs. Sunanda Thakur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
CIVIL REVISION No.62/20106. 02.2013 Shri Ajay Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this revision and I.A.No.1115/2013 to the respondent as to why this revision be not admitted/finally disposed of at motion stage itself, on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notice be made returnable in six weeks. Heard on I.A.No.1115/2013, an application for grant of interim stay of the execution proceedings. As contended by learned Counsel for the applicant, the amount of maintenance is regularly being deducted from the salary of the applicant and same is being deposited in the C.C.D., which the respondent has withdrawn. In view of this, it is contended that there was no occasion to initiate any execution proceeding for recovery of the maintenance amount. In view of the aforesaid, further proceedings in Execution Case No.236-A/2012, pending in the Court of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, shall remai...
Banwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12575/2012 6.2.2013 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.K.Lakhera, PL for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, counsel for the respondent No.2. Arguments heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR dated 10.6.2011 registered as Crime No.529/2011 by the police of Police Station Kotwali, District Damoh for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC on the ground that petitioner has submitted the forged documents for appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. Learned counsel for the University/respondent No.2 has submitted that due to oversight of university authorities, it has been informed to the concerned department that documents submitted by the petitioner are forged as there were other persons of similar name. not on perusal of record, the university authority has informed the petitioner that the documents submitted by him are not for...
Hiraman Singh Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Hiraman Singh Gond versus State of M.P.& Another Writ Petition No.16278 06. 02.2013 : Shri Mahesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. As the application filed by petitioner under Section 165(6) of the M.P.Land Revenue Code is pending before the Collector, respondent No.2, since 18.7.2012, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2, the Collector concerned is directed to decide the application in accordance to law after hearing all concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid. ( Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*...
Vishnu Kumar Soni Vs. Under Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Petition No :8145. / 2009 Vishnu Kumar Soni (Arya) versus State of MP and another 06.02.2013. Shri Sanjay Sarwate for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the respondents. Interalia contending that petitioner is a Freedom Fighter and is entitled to the Samman Nidhi, under the MP Swatantra Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Rules, 1972 and by the impugned order-dated 23.2.2006, his application for grant of the benefit is rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner on the ground that he has not undergone imprisonment for the stipulated period, this writ petition is filed. Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention to the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of Samman Nidhi Annexure P/5 and points out that in this application various particulars with regard to detention and arrest of the petitioner is indicated, but without considering these periods, the application has been rejected and, therefore, seeking a direction to ...
Mohd. Iliyas Vs. Smt. Riesa Begum
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Mohd. Iliyas versus Smt. Riesa Begum & Another Writ Petition No.1847 06. 02.2013 : Shri K.N.Bundela, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an interlocutory order passed by Second Civil Judge Class- II, Panna rejecting an application for appointment of Commission under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. Petitioner has filed a suit in question for declaration and injunction merely on the ground that in the land in question respondent is making encroachment. Initially when the application under Order 26 Rule 9 was filed for appointment of Commissioner, the same was dismissed and petitioner came to this Court in W.P.No.3561/2011 and vide order Annexure P-2 on 18.10.2011 the petition was dismissed. However, this Court observed that before recording of evidence, if an application can be filed and, therefore, interference was not called for. It is stated that not evidence have been recorded and the second application is rejected, a perusal of order goes to show that...
Rajeev Patel Vs. Aruna Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1...Con.C.No.1798 of 2011 Rajeev Patel Aruna Sharma 06.02.2013 None for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Counsel for the respondent No.6. This petition is directed alleging disobedience of the order dated 13.7.2011 passed in W.P.10485 of 2011 by which a Public Interest Litigation was finally disposed of with the following directions :- In view of the submission made by learned Government Advocate and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the instantpetition with the direction to the District Education Officer, Jabalpur to consider and decide the representation dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Needless to state that the District Education Officer shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the representation of the petitioner was considered vide Annexure R-1 and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- Next ›
- Last »