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.
Chhatra Singh Vs. Karan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
1 C.R.No.131/2011 25.02.2013 Shri K.N.Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Kishore Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 to 7. None for respondent No.9/State. Heard on the question of admission. This revision application under Section 115 C.P.C.has been filed by the defendants Nos.1 to 6 against the impugned order dated 13.01.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Dindori, whereby their application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.has been rejected. The contention of Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the defendants is that the suit has been filed for declaration of right, partition, injunction and to declare the sale deed void. His further contention is that in a suit for partition, the co-parceners are necessary party and because the respondents have not impleaded them as party, the suit is barred under the law, hence the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.was filed by the defendants, which was rejected by the learned trial Court. It has also been put for...
Sunil Kumar Rohra Vs. Smt. Rachna Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
C.R. 347/2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR CIVIL REVISION No.347 of 2012 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Applicant : Sunil Kumar Rohra S/o Arjun Das Rohra R/o Ward No.11, Shahdol, P.O. & P.S. Shahdol, Tahsil Sohagpur, District Shahdol (M.P.) Versus Respondent : Smt. Rachna Shrivastava W/o Avinash Kumar Shrivastava, R/o Ward No.5, Sohagpur, P.O. & P.S. Shahdol, Tahsil Sohagpur, District Shahdol (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant by - Shri Arpan Shrivastava, Advocate Respondent by - Shri Ravendra Shukla, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (25/02/2013) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18.5.2012 passed by learned First Civil Judge, Class II, Shahdol in Civil Suit No.34-A/ 2012 whereby the application of applicant-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed, this revision under Section 115 CPC has ...
Bhupesh Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Bhupesh Sahu versus State of M.P.& Another Writ Petition No.22132 25. 2.2013: Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Challenging a show-cause notice issued to petitioner under the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhli Adhiniyam).1974, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Seeking eviction of petitioner from the property in question proceedings have been initiated. Inter alia contending that under similar circumstances in various cases interim stay has been granted and, therefore, in the present case also similar benefit be granted, this writ petition is filed. However, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection and argued that, for the present, only a show-cause notice for eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhli Adhiniyam).1974 has been issued. After the show-cause notice as reply is to be filed by the petitioner and the competent authority has to pas...
Premlal Vishwakerma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.214/2013 Premlal Vishwakarma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri A.K. Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 25th day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 403 of IPC vide judgment dated 8.8.2011 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Maihar, District Satna in criminal case no.2232/06 and sentenced for one year R.I. with fine of `1000/-. In criminal appeal no.341/12, the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge Maihar, District Satna dismissed th...
M/S Industrial Armay Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.2324/2013 25.02.2013 Shri Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the respondent No.9. Other respondents are not served. The petitioner has sought following reliefs:- "(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to call for the relevant record pertaining to the subject matter for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to quash the order/letter Ann. P/1 by issuing an appropriate writ order and direction directing the respondents No.5 to 11 to pay the amount as per legal notice Ann. P/5 to petitioner so the petitioner may be able to pay the amount to respondent No.4. (iii)This Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased issue any other writ, directions, orders which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. This Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to award cost of this petition to him."The case of...
M/S M.T.R. (Mansarover Roof Top Restaurant) Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 8643/2011 25.2.2013 Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K. Pillai, learned counsel for respondents No. 3. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard. Aggrieved by order dated 24.3.2010 passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this petition. By impugned order the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the order dated 28.7.2009 passed by the Provident Fund Authority under Section 7A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, holding that the petitioner establishment since was having more than 20 employees w.e.f 25.10.2005 has been directed to start compliance under the Act of 1952 in accordance with coverage letter issued vide M.P. No. 18188/1569 dated 8.11.2005. Genesis of the order passed by the Provident Fund Authority is in the inspection which was carried out by Inspector appointed under Section 13 ...
Smt. Sarju Bai Narbariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.2750/2013 25.02.2013 Shri Sachindra Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents on advance notice. It appears that some of the petitioners are claiming benefit of Second Krammonati, which was required to be granted to the Teachers serving in the Department and who have expired. This writ petition is filed jointly by those persons seeking benefit of Second Krammonati in the case of their husband. It is further seen that some of the petitioners are said to be retired TeacheRs.who have not been granted the benefit of Second Krammonati and, therefore, they have come before this Court. The question involved in this petition has already been decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.04.2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being passed in W.P.No.5756/2008 (s).R.C.C...
Phool Singh and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Second Appeal No.1120/1998 (Phoolsingh and others ..v...State of MP & otheRs.25-02-2013 Shri Anurag Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that out of the four original plaintiffs, Shobharam died during the pendency of the suit on 14-12-1987, while Shivcharan and Gayaprasad died on 5-6-1993 and 7-10-1990, respectively, during the pendency of the fiRs.appeal. Their legal representatives were not brought on record. It is stated that Phoolsingh had died on 8-10-1998 before the filing of the second appeal but after passing of the impugned judgment and decree. In the circumstances, the appellants have filed I.A.No.7815/1998 to grant permission to substitute the names of the legal representatives in place of late Phoolsingh, Shivcharan and Shobharam. From the narration of the dates and the facts stated it is clear that on the date of the judgment in the suit, Shobharam had already died and on the date of the decision of the fiRs....
Bhurelal Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2896/20125. 02.2013 Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate, 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...
Smt. Shakuntala Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Writ Petition No.2705/2013 25.02.2013 Mr.Manot Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief. The petition is admitted for hearing. On payment of P.F.by registered post acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Mini Aganwadi Worker and therefore, she be permitted to continue on the said post. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No.5 was appointed on the post of Mini Aganwadi Worker on 27.12.2012. Against the said order of appointment, petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed vide order dated 4.2.2013. Being aggrieved by the order of Collector, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and the application for stay has already been rejected vide order dated 6.2.2013. For the aforementioned ...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »