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.
Sukhdeo Choudhary Vs. Western Coal Fields Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 W.P.No.19408/2012 (s) 04.02.2013 Shri S.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Appointed as Mechanical Fitter in 1984 in the respondent organization, petitioner was promoted as Mechanical Fitter Category II in 1985. Further promotion in Category IV, V and VI was on 1.4.1988, 16.4.1996 and 1.12.2004 respectively. That, for a promotion to Category VI DPC was convened on 8.11.2009 wherein the petitioner, respondents Nos.4 and 5 and other eligible Mechanical Fitter Category V were considered. On the basis of recommendations by DPC respondent Nos.4 and 5 were promoted to Category VI; whereas, the petitioner vide letter dated 20.2.2010 whereby the petitioner was called upon to furnish the Schedule Tribe Certificate in case he belongs to said Tribe. Subsequent thereafter again in a DPC held on 7.5.2012 the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman, but suspended. Grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering his claim as per seniorit...
Vijay Kumar JaIn Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Varasioni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 W.P.No.1523/2013 4.2.2013 Shri Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging the concurrents orders passed by the Trial Court and the appellate Court rejecting the application for injunction filed by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record it is seen that certain portions of the house belonging to the petitioner has been demolished and therefore, petitioner filed the suit for injunction stating that due to portion removed are the bathroom and toilets of the petitioner, which has been erased to the ground, both the Courts found that not the area has been dismentalled and therefore, status quo should be maintained. In doing so, the Courts have not committed any error warranting interference. However, while removing the structure as is shown from the photographs Annexure P/7 it is seen that pipeline connecting the toilet and b...
Dr. Dwarka Prasad Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Writ Petition No :19307. / 2012 Dr. Dwarka Prasad versus Rakesh Kumar and others 04.02.2013. Shri Akshay Sapre for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Sarwate and Shri Abhishek Gulati for the respondents. Challenging an order-dated 21.9.2012 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Khandwa in Civil Appeal No.6- A/2012, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is defendant in the suit, which was filed by plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2. In the said suit, one Smt. Santosh Bai was impleaded as defendant No.3(A).She expired on 9.12.2002, but her legal representatives were not brought on record. However, without bringing the legal representatives of Late Smt. Santosh Bai on record, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22.9.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that the decree in question is joint and inseverable and, therefore, a decree against a dead person was not maintainable. Petitioner has preferred a FiRs.Appeal, which is still pending. But when notice was issued to ...
Vinay Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5928/2011 4.2.2013 Shri Imtiyaz Husain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sameer Chile, GA for the State. Let notice for admission as well as IA No.10984/2011 which is an application for staying the further proceedings in criminal case No.742/2010, be issued to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within seven working days by both modes. Notices be made returnable within four weeks. List this case for admission immediately after service of notice on the respondent No.2. State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, further proceedings of the criminal case No.742/2010 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Begumganj, District Raisen, shall remain stayed till next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules (A.K.Sharma) JUDGE ravi...
Madanlal Sharma Vs. Smt. Radharani Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
FIRs.APPEAL No.44/20104. 02.2013 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned Counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Admit. Issue notice of this fiRs.appeal to the respondent on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notice be made returnable in six weeks. Send for the record of the Court below. Also heard on I.A.No.545/2013, an application for grant of interim stay. Issue notice of this application to the respondent on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notice be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the fact that insufficient stamped documents of agreement were made basis for grant of decree of refund of earnest money to the respondent/plaintiff, such a decree is bad in law. In view of the aforesaid, the execution of the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.11.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.9-A/2012 by the Additional District Judge, Pipariya, District Hos...
Choba Lal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Choba lal Patel versus The State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1771 4. 2.2013: Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. Grievance of the petitioner is that an application submitted by the petitioner on 3.11.1993 for grant of mining lease in village Jamuwani Kala, Rakwa 5.89 hect, is still pending and inspite of report submitted by the Tahsildar on 29.3.1995 the competent authority is not taking any action, seeking direction to the competent authority to decide the application of petitioner to grant mining lease which was initiated by him on 3.11.1993 and further contending that the application is still pending and has not been decided this writ petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I see no reason to interfere into the matter and issue any direction. If on the application filed by the petitioner for grant of mining lease, which was submitted on 3.11.1993, no ac...
Amar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 W.P.No.1614/2013 4.2.2013 Shri U.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenging a show cause notice Annexure P/8 issued to the petitioner a Sarpanch pointing out various irregularities committed in the matter of appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, petitioner has filed this writ petition making a prayer for quashing a show cause notice Annexure P/8 dated 24.11.2012. Challenge is made in this writ petition to a show cause notice wherein petitioner is directed to indicate as to why action be not taken for the breach as contained in the show cause notice. After reply is submitted by the petitioner, a final decision is to be taken by the competent authority subject to further appeal and revision under the statutory rules and therefore, a petition directly before this Court, particularly when only a show cause notice is issued is not maintainable. Petitioner is granted liberty to contest the show cause notice in...
Rajababu Tiwari Vs. the Kulpati, Dr. Hari Singh Gour Central Universit ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Writ Petition No. 3713 Of 2012 4.2.2013 Shri Neeraj Vegad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Surabhi Ahirkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Shri Dharmendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 7. None for respondent No. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that despite of order passed on 22.9.2011 passed in W.P. No. 4165/2011 (S) the respondents are not paying the pension. In W.P. No. 4165/2011 on 22.9.2011 it was directed: In view of the aforesaid, it is clear on the basis of the stand of the respondent University as well as the State, that prior to taking over of the University by the Central Government, neither the State No. the University were, in their individual capacity, liable to pay pension to the petitioners nor were they doing so but in fact as pe...
Varun Kant Tripathi Vs. Smt. Pooja Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Varun Kant Tripathi versus Smt. Pooja Tripathi Writ Petition No.8753 4. 2.2013: Shri Amit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anirudh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. Petitioner is the husband and has filed an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking judicial separation from his wife, the respondent. In the said proceedings, judicial separation is sought for mainly on the ground that the wife is suffering from certain ailment, mental in nature, and therefore, the separation be allowed. Based on the pleadings of the parties issues were framed, evidence have been recorded and the suit is at the final stage of argument, records indicate that it was fixed for final argument on 20.6.2012. When an application was filed seeking examination of the wife by a Medical Board, this application has been rejected mainly on the ground that both the parties have lead their evidence, various documents and even doctors on behalf of parties have been exam...
Nanhe Lal Dhurve Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Writ Petition No.12884/2012 4.2.2013 Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, Additional Advocate General, for the State. The petitioner has filed this petition for a prayer to quash the notice dated 7.7.2012, Annexure P/4, by which the Governot of Madhya Pradesh has extended the term of Board of Directors of all Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies for a period of six months from the date of notification i.e.6.2.2012. According to the petitioner, the elections should be held as per the amendment made in the Constitution under Article 243ZT of the Amendment Act 2011 and further that the State of Madhya Pradesh ought to have enacted as per law. We find that the following statement is made in para 2 of the additional submissions filed on behalf of the respondents. It reads as under: That the answering respondents have already filed preliminary submissions in the instant matter before the Honble High Court on 19/11/2012. In the aforesaid preli...
- ‹ Prev
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- Next ›
- Last »