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.
Anurodh Upadhyay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
M.C.C.No.130/2013 06.02.2013 Mr.Manish Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. This is an application has been filed for restoration of writ petition No.19310/2012 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.01.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 7.1.2013 when the matter was called out for hearing on the question of admission and stay, the earlier counsel Shri B.K.Shrivastava engaged by the petitioner did not appear to address the court. The application for restoration is duly supported by an affidavit. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that for the fault on the part of the counsel, party should not be penalized [See : Rafiq and another versus Munshilal and another, AIR 198.SC 140.and Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and another versus Raghu Raj, AIR 200.SC 514.].For the aforementioned reason, I find sufficient cause for restoration of the writ petition No.19310/2012 is made out. Accordingly, writ petition No.19310/2012 is...
Amol Bhupendranath Nagpure (D) Smt. Shubhangi Amol Nagpure Vs. Union o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Amol Bhupendranath Nagpure versus Union of India & Others Writ Petition No.7449 6. 2.2013: Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Samdarthi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is clear that the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1950, by respondent No.1 has been passed without granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of above, on this ground alone, the orders impugned Annexure P-8 and P-9 dated 21.6.2010 and 13.7.2010 passed by respondent No.1 are quashed. Matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 to decide the revision afresh in accordance to law after hearing all concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified...
Smt. Asha Suhaney Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Smt. Asha Suhaney versus State of M.P.& Another Writ Petition No.21577 06. 02.2013 : Shri Neeraj Vegad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. Challenging an order dated 17.9.1990 passed by the competent authority rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for grant of mining lease in the year 1986 and contending that certain directions issued by the Government Union of India in proceedings held under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 on 20.2.1998 has not been complied with, mining lease has not been granted to the petitioner till date, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Having heard Shri Neeraj Vegad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S.Bisen, learned counsel for the State on advance notice it is seen that the application for grant of mining lease was made by the petitioner in the year 1986 and it was dismissed on 17.9.1990. Even though the Revisional Authority nam...
G.C. Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 W.P.No.1894/2013 06.02.2013 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 29.10.2011, passed by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Jabalpur Cum Additional Director, Public Instructions, respondent No.4 is being assailed vide this petition. By impugned order petitioner who was posted as Accountant on deputation to District Jila Shiksha Kendra, has been repatriated to his post Junior Assistant in his parent department i.e.Jabalpur Sahakari Dugdh Sangh Maryadit. An employee of M.P.Dugdh Mahasangh petitioner Junior Assistant was sent on deputation to Krishi Upaj Mandi, Chourai, by order dated 14.08.2000. Thereafter, by order dated 2.9.2004, he was repatriated to his parent department. Lateron, by order dated 15.12.2004 the petitioner was sent on deputation to District Narsinghpur, as Accountant. Thereafter, by order dated 13.03.2006, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Jan Shiksha Kendra, Jabalpur, wherefrom by order dated 29.12.2011 and 18.1.2012, the ...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Bhailal Burma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
---1--- W.A.No.8/2013 6.2.2013 Shri, M.K.Agrawal learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. By consent heard finally. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.7826/2012 by learned Single Judge of this Court, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing that the writ petitioner be medically examined in terms of the medical procedure for the purpose of verification of his age. It is not disputed that after order of the learned Single Judge the re-examination has been held in accordance with the order. If any party is aggrieved, thereby he can challenge the said result of the re-examination. We see no reason to interfere in this writ appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. (S.A.Bobde) (Ajit Singh) Chief Justice Judge AK...
R.N. Tandon and Sons Vs. Sanghi Finance and Investment Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. CIVIL REVISION NO.396/2012. R.N.Tandon & Sons. Vs Sanghi Finance and Investments LTD.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri V.R.Rao, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S. Rao, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri V.K.Jain, Advocate with Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for respondent. ORDER (06.02.2013) This revision is directed against the order dated 23.9.2011, passed in Execution Case No.18/2005, by the VI Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, whereby the objection raised by the applicant has been turned down. Initially, a Misc. Appeal (Arbitration) No.4516/2011 was filed by the applicant, but subsequently the same has been converted into a Civil Revision. 2: Brief facts making claim by the applicant as given in the memo of revision are that the applicant, a contractor, was carrying out the business of earthmoving at Jabalpur. The respondent is a Finance and Investment Company Limited. On a request being made by the applica...
Ramesh Kumar Kumhare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 Cr.R. No.1567 of 2012 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1567/2012 Ramesh Kumar Kumhare. -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 6th day of February, 2013) By this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya in ST No.175/2009 whereby an application filed by the prosecution was accepted that merg enquiry statements of various witnesses viz. Babulal Jaiswal, Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, Smt. Gudiya Bai, Santan Bai and Shukla Jaiswal may be taken on record.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that a trial is going on against the applicant for the offence punishable under Se...
Smt. Nafeesa Begam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
M.CR.C.NO :14500. / 2012 Smt. Nafeesa Begam versus State of Madhya Pradesh 05.02.2013. Shri Neeraj Nagar for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Heard. Case diary perused. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC. Applicant apprehends her arrest in Crime No.32/2012 registered at Mahila Thana, District Sagar for offence registered under section 498-A read with section 34 of the IPC. While considering the prayer for ad-interim bail, the same was granted to the applicant on 10.12.2012 and thereafter there is no report of breach of the bail granted. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the order granting ad- interim anticipatory bail on 10.12.2012 is confirmed, subject to her complying with the mandatory requirement of section 438(2) CrPC. This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days. Accordingly, application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Namendra Singh Chauhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
Namendra Singh Chauhan versus State of M.P.M.Cr.C.No.15026 05. 02.2013 : Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in Crime Case POR No.24298/2010, registered in Forest Range Badi (Sighori Reserve) District Raisen for having committed offences punishable under Sections 9, 41, 27 of Wild Life Protection Act and Section 52 of Indian Forest Act. It is the case of applicant that he is a government servant and his Jeep was stolen when he was out of his Headquarters between 16.11.2012 to 18.11.2012 and when he returned home on 18.11.2012 in the night around 11:00 pm he found his jeep missing, he lodged an FIR Annexure A-2 with regard to the same. In the night intervening 18.11.2012 19.11.2012, the jeep was apprehended, which was being driven by certain unknown person and in the je...
Smt. Sampat Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
1 W.P. No.17240/2012 05.02.2013 Shri S. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. M. Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State. Heard. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier also petitioner visited this Court vide W. P. No.3495/2009 (s) which was decided on 24.07.2010. Order dated 07.05.2012, is being assailed vide this petition. Vide impugned order claim of the petitioner for grant of Family Pension in lieu of death of her husband Prahlad Patel has been turned down. Husband of the petitioner was initially appointed in the Horticulture Department, on daily wages. Thereafter, he was appointed as Jeep Driver on Regular Work Charged Establishment. While discharging his duties as Jeep Driver on Regular Establishment petitioner's husband died in harness on 29.9.1986. Petitioner approached the authorities for settlement of retiral dues including Family Pension which was turned down by respondents by order dated 25.06.1997. Aggrieved, whereby, petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- Next ›
- Last »