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.
Ram Pratap Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.21746/2012 22-02-2013 Shri O.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Challenging the issuance of death certificate Annexure P-3 with regard to death of Nevla Prajapati, this writ petition has been filed. It is the case of the petitioner that death certificate Annexure P-3 has been issued on the basis of false affidavit submitted by respondent no.5, and therefore, this petition is filed for cancellation of the death certificate. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, it is seen that under Section 15 of the said Act, a provision is contemplated for correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths and provision contempates for correction of error which have been occurred and the error can also be corrected if the entry is made by by way of fraudulently means . That being so, Registrar is empowered to ...
Asendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No.2316/2013 22.2.2013 Shri Amit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the State. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and be pleased to quash order dated 01.02.2013 passed by respondent no.4. (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondents be directed to pay the bills regularly without the condition of procurement of not from Mining Department. (iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, the respondents be directed to refund all the amount illegally deducted and detained under the head of royalty of minerals consumed. (iv) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondents be directed to implement the Judgment already passed by this Honble Court. (v) Any other relief/reliefs, order/ordeRs.direction/directions which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner including the cost of petition. The learned counsel ...
Keshav Prasad Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.2552/2013 22.2.2013 Shri V.P.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy 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 in the cir...
Sufi Tafseer Mohd Vs. M.P. Wakf Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No :2634. / 2013 Sufi Tafseer Mohd. versus MP Wakf Board and others 22.02.2013. Shri M. Shafiqullah for the applicant. Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Wakf Tribunal on 4.2.2013, refusing to grant stay in an appeal proceedings pending before the Wakf Tribunal, this writ petition has been filed. For the purpose of managing the property in question, an order has been passed by the Wakf Board, appointing a Committee and challenging the same the appeal has been filed before the Tribunal, which is pending. In the pending proceedings an application for interim stay was passed and the learned Tribunal has rejected the same and for rejecting the application for stay two reasons are given: The fiRs.reason is that under section 67(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995 there is no provision for stay. That apart, on merit, it has been held that a Committee has been constituted and if the working of the said Committee is stayed, it would cause adveRs.affect on the working and findi...
M/S Supreme Buildcon [P] Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No.2315/2013 22.2.2013 Shri Amit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the State. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondents be directed to pay the bills regularly without the condition of procurement of not from Mining Department. (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, the respondents be directed to refund all the amount illegally deducted and detained under the head of royalty of minerals consumed. (iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondents be directed to implement the Judgment already passed by this Honble Court. (iv) Any other relief/reliefs, order/ordeRs.direction/directions which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner including the cost of petition. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by an order of this Court in W.P.No...
Vidya Bhushan Pandey Vs. Barkatullah University Hoshangabad Road Bhopa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
1 W.P.No.2713/2013 Vidya Bhushan Pandey Barkatullah University & another 22.2.2013 Shri Praveen Chourasiya, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Mahendra Pateria, Counsel for respondents. Petitioner has sought for following reliefs:- (i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for grace marks in the light of the circular dated 25.7.2005 since the petitioner has secured more than 50% marks as aggregate in the said examination and to grant 5 grace marks in Theory to the petitioner in the subject Practice of Medicine. of Fourth B.H.M.S.Examination (New).2012. of Final Year BHMS so as to make his total marks 150 out of 300 and he be declared as passed in the said subject. (ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court finds the petitioner to be entitled be also granted. (iii) Cost of the petition. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's representation for grant of grace marks is pending before ...
Seva Sahakari Samiti Balgawada Teh. Barelil Distt. Raisen Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Seva Sahakari Samiti versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.2837 22. 2.2013: Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging an order Annexure P-1 dated 12.2.2013 passed by competent authority suspending the Fair Price Shop License of petitioner issued under the M.P.Public Distribution Scheme, 2009, this writ petition has been filed, on the ground that the license has been suspended without hearing the petitioner and without notice to him and as the principle of natural justice is violated, the same is unsustainable. It is argued by learned counsel that even though under the statutory scheme there is a provision for appeal, but as the basic principle of natural justice is violated, he has filed this writ petition which is maintainable, even though petitioner has a remedy available of filing an appeal. Shri S.K.Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, refuted the aforesaid and submits that, for the present, as the ...
Dayashankar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.2640/2013 22.2.2013 Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of PF within seven days by registered AD. Notices be made returnable witin four weeks. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when he was sought to be repatriated, the action initiated by the respondents was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.4315/2009(s) which came to be decided on 26.4.2011 directing consideration of case of petitioner for absorption and quashing the order of repatriation. The process of absorption of the petitioner is continuing but again the impugned order of repatriation has been issued. Therefore, he is required to approach this Court. In view of the aforesaid, the operation of impugned order dated 11.1.2013 (Annexure P-4) is hereby stayed. The respondents will allow the petiti...
Ravindr Chouksey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Cr.R.No.688/1999 22.2.2013 Shri Arvind Chouksey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1/State. Shri Anoop Nair, counsel for the respondent no.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is a revision filed against the order dated 28.9.1998 relating to giving a vehicle on supurdginama. At present nearly 14 years are passed after passing of the order and it appears that age of the vehicle has already expired. Under such circumstances, it makes no difference if the impugned order subsists or not. The parties should contest before the competent Court for getting the price of the vehicle according to their challenge. Under such circumstances, it appears that the revision filed by the applicant turns infructuous and therefore, it is dismissed being infructuous. (N.K.Gupta) Judge bina...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hari Om Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
WA 110.13 Writ Appeal No.110 of 2013 (State of Madhya Pradesh and three others versus Hari Om Patel and another) 22/02/2013 Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice. This Intra-Court-Appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 at the instance of the State Government and its functionaries is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6042/2012, decided on 03-10-2012; whereby, taking into consideration that the issue as to recognition of graduation certificate obtained by an Army Personnel from an Institute run by Indian Army to be equivalent to the educational qualification prescribed in Column 1.8 of the advertisement dated 25-05-2011 (Annexure-P/2) in Writ Petition No.6042/2012) for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector, Subedar and Platoon Commandant being settled in Writ Petition 8252/2...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »