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.
Pursottam Lal Sen Vs. Rohni Prasad Chakrawarti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Pursottam Lal Sen versus Rohni Prasad Chakrawarti & Others Conc. No.1129 21. 2.2013: Shri R.B.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned counsel for respondents. Keeping in view the order passed vide Annexure R-1 dated 23.7.2011, rejecting the claim of petitioner for regularization, no further action is required to be taken in the matter. In case petitioner has any grievance still subsisting with regard to manner in which his claim has been considered, he may challenge the same afresh in accordance to law. Accordingly, finding no case made out for initiating action for contempt, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. With the aforesaid the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Dr.Neha Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
WP No.9069/06 21.2.13. None for petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agarwal, learned GA for respondent no.1 and 2. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Shri Lalwani submits that he has downloaded an order of the Supreme Court in the matter of petitioners dated 7th of January, 2008 by which this case was transferred to the Supreme Court and it is submitted that the matter is to be heard by the Apex Court, but we are unable to accept the aforesaid contention as the Supreme Court has communicated to this Court another order dated 7th of February, 2011 by which earlier order dated 7th of January, 2008 which is referred by Shri Lalwani has already been recalled. In these circumstances, the matter is to be heard by this Court. Shri Agarwal, learned GA appearing for State submits that this matter relates to Md.couRs.for the academic session 2006-07, in respect of the seats of NRI quota, has rendered infructuous. On raising such contention, Shri Lalwani prays a short time to seek instru...
Vinod Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1146/2012 Vinot Soni and another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Revision No.1933/2012 Manohar Soni and another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Shri Ashish Tiwari, counsel for the objector/complainant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 22nd day of February, 2013) These two revision applications are connected with the same case and same crime, therefore, decided by the present common order.2. The applicants have preferred the criminal revision No.1933/2012 against the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the learned 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.362/2012, whereby the charg...
Chunwad Prasad Kushwaha Vs. Smt. Madhu Handa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Chunwad Prasad Kushwaha versus Smt. Madhu Handa & Another Conc. No.121 21. 2.2013: Shri P.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for non-applicants. Keeping in view the order passed by non-applicants as contained in Annexure R-1 dated 23.9.2011, rejecting claim of applicant, I see no reason to initiate action for contempt. In case applicant has any grievance still subsisting with regard to manner in which his claim has been considered and rejected, he may challenge the same afresh in accordance to law. Accordingly, finding no case made out for initiating action for contempt, non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. With the aforesaid the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Rajesh Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Writ Petition No.2626/2013 21.02.2013 Mr.R.S.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief. On payment of P.F.by registered post with acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of this petition to the respondents. Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification issued for recruitment on the post of Forest Guard is contrary to Section 4 of M.P.Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994. It is further submitted that an application has been submitted by the petitioner for appearing in the aforesaid examination. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the examination, which is scheduled to be h...
Krishan Mani Shukla Vs. Radhe Shyam Dulaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Krishna Mani Shukla versus Radhe Shyam Dulaniya & Others Conc. No.1466 21. 2.2013: Shri Avanish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Gulab K, Patel, learned counsel for respondents. Considering the nature of order passed by this Court in writ petition which only directed respondents to consider and decide the representation and the representation having been considered and rejected, on the ground that representation has not been properly considered no case is made out for initiating action for contempt. In case petitioner has any grievance still subsisting in the manner in which representation has been decided, it gives fresh cause to the petitioner to challenge the same afresh in accordance to law, but not a case for initiating action for contempt. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the action afresh in accordance to law, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. With the aforesaid the application...
Ramagovind Singh Vs. Smt. Saleena Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Ramagovind Singh versus Smt. Saleena Singh & Others Conc. No.1335 21. 2.2013: Shri Gajendra Singh Gaharwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned counsel for respondents. Keeping in view the documents filed by the respondents and the money receipt Annexure R-1 indicating payment of Rs.5,09,894/- to the petitioner, it is seen that the order has been complied with. In view of above, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt. In case petitioner has any grievance still subsisting, he may challenge the same afresh in accordance to law. Accordingly, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. With the aforesaid the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Deepchand Dubey Vs. Rajkumar Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.675/1999 Deepchand. Vs. Raj Kumar Lodhi. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Atul Anand Awasthi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A. Dubey, Advocate for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 21st day of February, 2013) The applicant by the instant revision has challenged the judgment dated 5.1.1999 passed by the Special Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.1921/1994 whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 294, 506- B of IPC and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 145 of the Railways Act and sentenced by imposing the fine amount of Rs.150/-.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 5.7.1994 at about 7:00 PM in the evening the complainant Deepchand (PW-1) was...
Rajaram Das Wadbude Vs. Shri P. Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Rajaram Das Wadbude versus Shri P. Gupta & Another Conc. No.1396 21. 2.2013: Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Keeping in view the order passed by respondents as contained in Annexure R2-3 dated 23.4.2012 rejecting claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, no further indulgence is called for. In case petitioner has any grievance still subsisting in the manner in which consideration is made, he may challenge the same afresh in accordance to law. Accordingly, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. With the aforesaid the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Anand Nema Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
W.P.No.5421/12 21/02/13 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is a tenant in the shop bearing not G-8 and G-9 situated in Mansarovar Complex, Chhindwara. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 9/03/12 passed by the respondent/Bank wherein the Bank directed the petitioner to be evicted from the shop only on the ground that the property has to be auctioned and, therefore, petitioner should vacate the premises. Auction with regard to the premises in question have been interfered with by this Court and certain directions have been issued in W.P.No.5326/12 which is listed for analogous hearing today. Once, the entire auction is quashed , the bank has no authority to direct for eviction of the premises by the petitioner. Petitioner is a tenant in the premises and merely because property is auctioned, no right accrues to the Bank to evict the petitioner from the premises. If the petitioner is to vacate the premises and if it is found that petitioner is unauthorized ...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »