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.
Ku.Vaishali Dwivedi Vs. Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan Regional Office
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WP No.13881/2012. 27.02.2013 Shri V.Mishra, Adv.for the petitioner. Heard . Notice be issued to respondents no.1 and 2 on payment of PF within three clear working days by RAD returnable within three weeks. Also heard on interim relief at para 8 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admission fee has been taken and petitioner has prosecuted her study in 7th Class vide annexure P/3 in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Bhopal region Her admission was transferred to Rewa but she has not been permitting to appear in examination. If she is not permitted to appear in examination her whole academic year shall be spoiled. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case respondent no.2 is directed to permit Ku. Vaishali Dwivedi to appear in coming examination for 7th Class in Kendriya Vidyalay Rewa with the condition that her result shall not be declared. C c today. (M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE Ag/...
Santosh Pal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1286/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 25.11.2012 in connection with Crime No.414/2012 registered at P.S.Vindhyanagar, District Singrauli for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366(A).376 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecutrix is more than 18 years of age. She had gone with the applicant on her own accord and lived with him for about 2 months at Robertganj, District Sonbhadra, U.P.She did not make any complaint to any one in the aforesaid period. The prosecutrix appears to be a consenting party. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consi...
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1104/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Sandeep Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 23.12.2012 in connection with Crime No.643/2012 registered at P.S.Bairasiya, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 302/34, 120-B of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not the main accused of committing the murder of Ajay Agrawal, who is stated to have been murdered by Man Singh and Lakhan Singh. It is alleged against the applicant that he entered into conspiracy with the main accused for committing murder of Ajay Agrawal, who was his son. The applicant has been made accused on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act during investigation, whi...
Narendra Pratap Singh Vs. Megma Sincorp Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 W.P.No.3161/2013 27.2.2013 Shri V.P.Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an order Annexure P/1 dated 8.11.2011 passed by the Executing Officer, this writ petition has been filed. Proceedings were held under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and an award has been passed. Challenging the award an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is pending before the learned District Judge, Jabalpur. However as the execution proceeding are pending before the District Judge, Umariya, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking stay of the execution proceeding. Petition filed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. Appeal is pending before the District Judge, Jabalpur who has to consider the question of staying the execution. When the appeal is pending before the District Judge, Jabalpur, no jurisdiction accrues to this Court for staying the execution proceeding when the main appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration a...
Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1289/2013 27.2.2013 Shri H.S.Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.225/2012 registered by Lokayukt, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d).13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at the time when the prosecution filed charge sheet before the Special Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been released by the Police. The applicant is a government servant. Nothing is required to be seized from his possession. He is ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appli...
M/S M.H.Textile Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No.2995 / 2013 M/s M.H.Textile versus Punjab National Bank and another 27.02.2013. Shri Riaz Mohammed for the petitioner. Challenging the action initiated against the petitioner under section 13 read with 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2002).this petition has been filed. A Bench of this Court recently in the case of Ram Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.2013 (1) MPLJ 117 has laid down the principle that once proceedings are initiated under section 13 and action is proposed to be taken under section 14, the statutory remedy under section 17 is available and a writ petition is not maintainable. In the said judgment rendered in the case of Ram Singh (supra) detailed reasons have been given and various principle laid down by the Supreme Court have been considered and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 has been rejected on the ground that a r...
Jagdish Singh Thakur Vs. Smt.Kusum Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 W.P.No.14517/2012 27.2.2013 Shri S. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the order passed by the appellate Court on 17.7.2012 in the matter of granting injunction to the plaintiff and directing maintenance of status quo and not to alienate the suit property, this writ petition has been filed. Taking note of the reasons given by the Trial Court and the justification given for the same as contained in para 20 and 21, no case is made out for interference. After assessing the existence of prima facie case and balance of convenience and finding it in favour of the plaintiff, learned Appellate Court has directed for maintaining status quo of the property restraining the defendants from alienating it. Nothing is pointed out to this Court on the basis of which the order passed by the Appellate Court can be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference in the matter is called for. However, considering the fact that matter is pending since one ye...
Jitendra Vasanii Vs. Director Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Hp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No :9876. / 2012 Jitendra Vasani versus Director, HPCL and others 27.02.2013. Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava for the petitioner. Challenging the allotment of LPG Distributor-ship to respondent No.3 vide order-dated 30.4.2012, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is stated by the petitioner that he has raised certain objections vide Annexure P/5 dated 13.5.2012 and as these objections have not been considered, this writ petition is filed. Further reminder has also been sent, which is also not decided. Keeping in view the fact that certain objections were raised by the petitioner before respondent No.2 and the same has not been considered for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits and without making any observation with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner, it is argued that respondent No.2 shall take note of the objections of the petitioner and if authorized, shall take a decision on the same or else forward it to the HeadquarteRs.where the matter...
Smt. Sarla Saroj Khare Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No :7960. / 2011 Smt. Sarla Saroj Khare versus Punjab National Bank and others 27.02.2013. Shri L.C.Chourasiya for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Banerjee for the respondents. It is common ground that during the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner has already cleared all the outstanding dues and to that effect there is no dispute between the parties. However, after deposit of the said amount if any amount is to be refunded to the petitioner, as claimed by her in I.A.No.3055/2013, petitioner is granted liberty to represent to respondents 2 and 3, and the said respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for refund of `61,200/-, as indicated in the application in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, finding no dispute to be existing between the parties, this writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Pooja Singh Vs. Dipti Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 Writ Appeal No. 137/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned senior counsel with Shri K.S. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Since the respondents have entered appearance, therefore, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard. This Intra Court Appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 17.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 10532/2010; whereby, while allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1, learned Single Judge while quashing the selection process for grant of retail petroleum outlet and dealership to appellant herein under Kisan Sewa Kendra (Retail Outlet). directed the respondent Indian Oil Corporation and its functionaries ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »