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.
Smt. Neema Bai Vs. Smt. Jaibun Nisha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 W.P.No.1929/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners are defendants and are facing the suit for declaration and injunction. In the said suit an application for appointing the commission and conducting spot inspection under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC having been rejected petitioners have filed this writ petition. Even though various contentions were advanced in support of the defendants but on perusal of the order passed by the Court below, it is seen that in an appeal which was filed before the Appellate Court, certain directions have been issued as as directed by the Appellate Court spot inspection has been conducted and report has been submitted. Holding that in view of the above, further spot inspection by another person is not necessary and holding that for the purpose of collecting evidence on their behalf, commission cannot be appointed, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has been rejected. Order passed by the C...
Smt. Nirmala Yedalwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2603/20127. 02.2013 Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned i...
Shri Beni Prasad Pathak Th:smt. Gomti Vs. Wakf Khankah Nijamiyan Aagha ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
C.R.No.100/2013 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K.Shrivastava C.R.No.100/2013 APPLICANT SHRI BENI PRASAD PATHAK (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SMT. GOMTI, W/O LATE BENI PRASAD PATHAK, R/O HOUSE NO.376/36, KASTURBA WARD (PURANA GARHAPHATAK WARD H.No.90) AAGHA CHOWK KARBALA ROAD RANITAL JABALPUR DISTT. JABALPUR M.P.Versus RESPONDENTS 1 WAKF KHANKAH NIJAMIA AGA CHOWK, RANITAL, JABALPUR THROUGH ITS MUTAWALLI SAYYED LIYAKAT ALI, S/o SAYYAD KHURSHEED ALI, R/O 263/01, NAYA MOHALLA, JAIPRAKASH NARAYAN WARD, JABALPUR (M.P.) 2. M.P.WAKF BOARD, BHOPAL THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEAR TAJUL MASJID, BHOPAL, DISTRICT M.P.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant by - Shri Saurabh Tiwari, Advocate Respondent No.1 by Shri A.M.Trivedi, Senior Advocate with Shri Ritesh Sharma, Advocate Respondent No.2 by- Shri Saleem Rahman, Advocate. -----------------------------------------------------------...
Purshottam Khubele Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2833/20127. 02.2013 Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal file...
Ram Murti @ Lalji Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WP No.2472/2013. 27.02.2013 Shri Dharmendra Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Govt. Adv.for the respondents/State. Heard finaly. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash the impugned orders respondents no.2 and 3 dated 3.3.2011 and 20.11.2012 by which appeal has been dismissed on the short ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is bonafide holder of licence of rifle and his licence was cancelled without giving him opportunity of hearing by the Collector on 19.12.2011 of which he filed a review petition. The order is appeal-able, instead of filing appeal, petitioner has filed review petition before the Collector to review its order dated 19.12.2011. This review petition was decided on 3.3.2011 and review petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to review petition the appeal before the Commissioner could not be filed in time and alongwith an appeal an...
Ramesh Kurmi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.15488/2012 27.2.2013 Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 23.10.2012 in connection with Crime No.511/2012 registered at Police Station Garhakota District Sagar for offence punishable under Sections 307, 294 and 506-II/34 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The injured has already be discharged from the hospital. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties along with facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the vi...
Golu @ Ghanshyam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1265/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicants are in custody since 17.1.2013 in connection with Crime No.8/2013 registered at P.S.Bharweli, District Balaghat for the offence punishable under sections 363, 354, 506/34, 365, 366-A of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Initially, the offences under Sections 363, 355, 506 of the IPC were registered against the applicants, thereafter, on the basis of application filed by the ADPO under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C.offences under Section 365 and 366-A of the IPC have been added. The applicants are innocent persons. They do not have any criminal past. The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail. Le...
Deemaklal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No :2893. / 2013 Deemaklal Sahu versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 25.02.2013. Shri Binot Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PL, for the State. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, respondents 2, 3 and 4 are directed to take note of the representation submitted by the petitioner, as contained in Annexures P/2 and P/3, and decide it in accordance with law, at an earlier date. If it is found that the land of the petitioner is being taken over for the purpose of constructing a dam, adequate compensation in accordance with law be paid to him. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Chandrashekhar Madhukar Shukla Vs. M.P. Rajya Beej Avam Farm Vikas Nig ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
W.P.No.2968/2013 27.02.2013 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. The only controveRs.involved in the present petition is that though the benefit is extended in terms of payment of pay in the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post on which persons like petitioner is working, in case of one Sunil Kumar Shrivastava but the identical claim made by the petitioner for which similar direction was granted by this Court has not yet been considered. A representation is made by the petitioner but the same has not yet been decided and, therefore, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is seen from the record that one Sunil Kumar Shrivastava has filed W.P.No.2797/2004, which came to be decided by this Court on 01.09.2006. Similarly the petitioner has also filed W.P.No.3280/2004, which too was disposed of on 11.8.2006 in the identical manner. The similar directions were given by this Court in both the cases. The claim of Sunil Ku...
Ramesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No ::2996. / 2013 Ramesh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 27.02.2013. Shri Yogendra Patel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Against the order-dated 16.1.2012 Annexure P/2, petitioner has a remedy of filing a writ petition before the Board of Revenue. But, it seems that the petitioner could not file the revision within the statutory period of limitation and, therefore, has approached this Court. Petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community and keeping in view the rights of the petitioner, interest of justice requires that he should be granted permission to file the revision and the delay in filing the same should be condoned. In view of the above, it is directed that in case petitioner files an application before the Board of Revenue against the order in question, within a period of 15 days from today, the Board of Revenue shall consider and decide the revision of the petitioner o...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »