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.
Naveen Arora Vs. Jyoti Khatri
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Writ Petition No :2728. / 2013 Naveen Arora versus Jyoti Khatri and another 25.02.2013. Shri Pushpendra Yadav for the petitioner. Shri Shobhitaditya for the respondents. Challenging an order passed by the Board of Revenue, on 16.11.2012, exercising powers of revision available under section 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as Code).this writ petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the revision which was filed by the respondents was barred by time and, therefore, as is evident from Annexure P/2, an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. To the same, some objections was also filed by the present petitioner vide Annexure R/3. However, in the order passed by the Board of Revenue in paragraph 6, it is stated that on 13.8.2012, counsel appearing for the present petitioner one Smt. Nandini, did not object to the delay and, therefore, the matter was proceeded with and thereafte...
Ganga (Dead)th:lrs. Nihori @ Phulmati, Vs. Beni Madhav (Dead) Th:lrs. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Second Appeal No.170/2013 (Ganga since deceased through Nihori and others versus Beni Madhav since deceased through Ramnihor and otheRs.25.02.2013 Heard Shri M.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Vivek Baderiya, learned counsel for the respondents on caveat. Heard on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 31.01.2013 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa in C.A.No.45-A/09 whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Sirmour District Rewa in C.S.No.941-A/06 has been set aside and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit had been filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming possession and mesne profit in respect of khaSr.Nos.561 and 562/1 area 13 acres of village Amvi District, Rewa. It is submitted that the suit was dismissed by trial court by holding that the...
Janpad Panchayat Vs. Azad Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
R.P.No.102/11 25/02/13 Smt. Gulab K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the order passed in the writ petition W.P.No.13503/09 (s) was disposed of on 21/01/10. Respondents No.3 to 6 have not appeared. Notice to the said respondents are only issued on 16/12/09 and it seems that notices were not properly served on them and without hearing them, the writ petition was disposed of. There is some error apparent on the face of the record as relevant facts brought to the notice by the applicant are not taken note of, this warrants consideration. Keeping in view, this application is allowed. The order dated 21/01/10 passed in W.P.No.13503/09 (s) is recalled. The said writ petition be restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the appropriate Bench in the next week. With the aforesaid, application stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Ju...
Balram Singh Rathore Vs. Director
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Writ Petition No.2633/2013 25.02.2013 Mr.Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioners seeks regularization from the date of initial appointment in the light of Circular dated 06.09.2008 issued by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition be disposed of and the petitioners be granted liberty to submit the representations to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representations submitted by the petitioners shall dealt with in accordance with law. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioners submits a representation within a period of three weeks, the same shall be decided by the Compet...
Saiyad Naeem Ui Hasan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
WRIT PETITION No.11800/20125. 02.2013 Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State. Though the notices were issued by this Court to the respondents, yet no response has been filed. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the issue is covered by several decisions of this Court, lastly decided by this Court in the case of Kishori Lal Prajapati & others versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.W.P.No.5332/2010 (S).It is further contended that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kishori Lal Prajapati (supra) was relied and made applicable in the case of Bhagchand Patel versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.W.P.No.16930/2012 (S).which was disposed of on 10.10.2012. The order passed in the case of Bhagchand Patel (supra) was called in question before the Division Bench by the respondents-State in W.A.No.53/2013, which has been dismissed on 23.01.2013. These submissions made ...
Buddha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Buddha & Another versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.2710 25. 2.2013: Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I Niwadi, District Tikamgarh, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioners are plaintiffs and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. In the said suit an application filed by the petitioners for appointment of commission to conduct inspection and submit report is rejected merely on the ground that the dispute in question can be considered by recording of evidence and for the purpose of collecting evidence, at this stage, appointment of commission is not necessary. Rejection of application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC on the grounds and reasons as indicated hereinabove cannot be termed as perveRs.or illegal to such an ext...
Rammilan Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.2518/2013 25.02.2013 Shri S.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court has entertained the writ petition and since a caveat was filed by the respondent-University, direction was given to serve a copy of the writ petition on learned counsel appearing for the respondent-caveator. No response whatsoever has been filed. In the identical matters this Court has granted an interim protection. Considering the aforesaid, till the next consideration of this interim prayer, the petitioner be allowed to continue on the post. However, he will not claim the benefit of equity, if the petition fails. List after four weeks to enable learned counsel for the respondents to file response. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Smt. Alka Jat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
25.2.2013 Shri Amit Vishwakarma, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Punit Shroti, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. Applicants are in custody since 29.1.2013 in connection with Crime No.128/2013 registered at P.S.Gohalpur, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are ladies, they have been falsely implicated in the case. As per prosecution, more than 50 bulk liters of illicit liquor alleged to have been seized from the possession of the applicants. The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall fac...
Raghav Prasad Upadhyay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.17349/2007 25.02.2013 Shri Akshat Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. The controveRs.involved in the present petition is whether the petitioner would be entitled to get the pensionery benefit only after payment of his part of Contributory Provident Fund to the State Government. It is not clear from the stand taken by the respondents in the return whether such a scheme was extended to the Vaidyas of the Janpad Panchayat, who were absorbed in the services of the State Government or not. Further, the petitioner is also not in a position to explain whether he has received any amount towards the Contributory Provident Fund from the Janpad Panchayat or not. The additional affidavits in this respect be filed by both the sides. Let the petition be listed in the week commencing 18th March, 2013. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Sandeep Kumar Agrawal and ors. Vs. Deo Ramchandraji Bramhachari Mandir
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
1 C.R.No.470/2004 25.02.2013 Shri R.S.Tiwari and Shri Anurag Tiwari, Advocates for the applicants. Heard. This revision application has been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C.against the order dated 21.06.2004 passed by learned FiRs.Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur in Misc. Civil Appeal No.1/2004, whereby the order dated 23.12.1998 passed by learned Civil Judge Class II, Narsinghpur in MJ.No.5/98, by which the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.filed by the applicants has been dismissed, has been affirmed. A civil suit for eviction on the relationship of land lord-tenant was filed by plaintiff-land lord long back in the year 1978 and the civil suit was registered as Civil Suit 32-A/78. Despite defendant Motilal Agrawal was served, he did not appear. Eventually he was proceeded exparte and the suit was decreed on 26.02.1979 in ex-parte. Later on the decree was put to execution on 14.02.1990. Thereafter an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.was filed by the applicants on 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »