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.
Gruh Finance Ltd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
GRUH Finance LTD.versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.2519 22. 2.2013: Shri Bramhadatt Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.2 the competent authority, empowered to take action under Section 13 read with Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is directed to proceed in accordance to law and take action as may be contemplated under law within a reasonable time. Prima facie it is seen that authorities are not proceeding in the matter as contemplated under the statute. However, action can be taken after hearing all concerned and after following the requirement of Act of 2002. It is expected that action would be taken within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid the petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Munnu Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Criminal Revision No.807/2012 22.02.2013 Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State. Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.9245/2012, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision. Application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The State has preferred the present revision against the order dated 18.6.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pawai, District Panna in S.T.No.97/11, whereby it was found that no charge of the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is made out against the respondent and therefore, case was remanded to the Court of J.M.F.C., Pawai. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the x-ray report and other documents relating to the grave injuries sustained by the victim because ...
Mahadeo Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.2598/13 22/02/13 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner has filed an application before respondent No.2 on 23/01/13 under Section 248 and grievance of the petitioner is that cognizance of the application is not being taken note of and no orders have been passed. Once, an application is filed before the statutory authority under the statutory provisions, the authority is required to pass appropriate orders on the application and cannot refuse to take cognizance of the same. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with the relevant documents before respondent No.2, the said respondent shall proceed in the matter and decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with the requirement of law if required after hearing all concerned and after issuing notice. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Men...
Babita @ Rameshvari Vs. Jitendra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
MCC No.34/2004 22.02.2013 Heard Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate for the applicant. This application under Section 24 CPC has been filed by the wife praying that the suit filed by respondent- husband at Indore under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act.) be transferred to Betul. This Court on 15.1.2004 admitted this MCC and also stayed the further proceedings in Case No.416/2003 pending before the Family Court at Indore. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if necessary application is filed by the applicant under Section 24 of the Act for providing maintenance amount and further to provide travelling expenses of Railway/Bus the same may be decided by learned Family Court, Indore in proper perspective manner. He further submits that if any application is filed by the applicant to get herself examined through Commission at Betul the same may also be directed to be decided by learned Family Court, Indore in proper perspective manner. Considered the aforesaid ...
Smt. Mamta Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2767/2013 22.02.2013 Shri Pradeep Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for the respondents/State on advance copy. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner 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 petitioner 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, t...
M/S Oriental Distributors Vs. M/S JaIn Electricals
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
(1) Civil Revision No.2/2008 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Civil Revision No.2 / 2008 Applicant : M/s.Oriental Distributors Proprietor Lalit Kumar Jalan S/o. Jag Mohan Jalan, 25, Baliganj Park, Kolkatta (W.B.) through General Power of Attorney Gopi Kishan Chandak S/o. Shankarlal Chandak S/o. Shankarlal Chandak, R/o. Hamidiya Road, at present 6, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) Vs. Respondents :1. M/s. Jain Electricals through Proprietor Basant Kumar.2. Basant Kumar Jain, M/s. Jain Electricals, Both R/o. Fawara Chowk, 19, Jawaharganj, Jabalpur (M.P.) _________________________________________________________ Shri Umesh Trivedi, Advocate for applicant. Shri Sanmat Kumar Jain, Advocate for respondents. _________________________________________________________ ORDER (22/02/2013) This revision application under Section 115 of CPC has been filed at the instance of plaintiff who was arrayed as non-applicant in the proc...
Balbhadra Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No.2588/2013 22.02.2013 Mr.D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 26.12.2012, by which he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner also prayed for quashment of charge-sheet dated 18.1.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was posted as Forest Guard in Beat Darodi, Range Vijayraghavgarh, Forest Division Katni. It is further submitted that a tiger died in an area which is situate adjacent to the area, of which the petitioner is Incharge. However, with a malafide intention, the respondent No.3 has placed the petitioner under suspension. It is also submitted that before issuing order of suspension, no enquiry has been held to find as to the involvement of the petitioner in the incident. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has been served the charge- sheet da...
Dr. Harbhajan Singh Atwal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.2529/2013 22.02.2013 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. I.A.No.1983/13 has been filed for removing the default pointed out by the office. Considering the averments, I.A.stands allowed. Let the amendment be incorporated within two working days. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice. Shri Vibhudendra Mishra, learned counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3. Let Process Fee be paid for issuance of notice on respondents No.1 and 2 by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in four weeks. While hearing on interim prayer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 prayed for a day's time to seek instructions. Prayer allowed. Let the petition be listed for consideration of interim prayer on 26.2.2013. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj. W.P.No.2529/2013...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Seema Aparaste
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No :8667. / 2012 National Insurance Co.LTD.versus Smt. Seema Paraste and others 22.02.2013. Shri N.S.Ruprah for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Kushwaha for respondents 1 to 7. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order-dated 19.11.2011 Annexure P/1, passed in MVC No.17/2009 (35/2011) by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur and Chairman and Judicial Member of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bench Jabalpur. Respondents 1 to 7 filed an application seeking compensation due to death of one R.K.Paraste. A claim was made for payment of ` 15 Lacs as compensation. The matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat that was held on 10.7.2010. As a compromise award Annexure P/5 was passed in the said Lok Adalat, whereby it is stated that the parties agreed for settlement of the claim on payment of `8.5 Lacs as compensation. The document with regard to settlement goes to show that the Lok Adalat was held before a Bench consisting of...
C.K.Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
1 WRIT PETITION NO.21930/2012 22.02.2013 Shri Vijay Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen that in terms of order dated 17.1.2013, the petitioner was required to make good the default as pointed out by the registry. For the purposes of removing the default I.A.No.359/2013 was filed by the petitioner seeking to replace the last page of the writ petition in which the necessary declarations were not made and the default was pointed out by the registry. It appears that when the proposal was sent, the I.A., was never listed before the Court for an order. Instead, the matter was listed on 1.2.2013 on which date, the petitioner took time to file certain documents. However, the fact remains that replacement of last page of the writ petition was done without any order of this Court on I.A.aforesaid. When asked, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this was done because the Court has him to remove the default within seven days by order dated 17.1.2013 and treating...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »