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.
Hariram Vs. Prakash Chand Dheeran
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
(1) Civil Revision No.418/2007 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava CIVIL REVISION No.418 Of 2007 HARIRAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 1(A) SHER SINGH DUDANI, 1(B) ASHOK KUMAR 1 C) RAJENDRA KUMAR 1 D) SANJAY KUMAR, ALL R/O. DEVGAON PIPARIA DISTT. HOSHANGABAD ...APPLICANTS /DECREE HOLDERS -Versus- 1. PRAKASH CHAND DHEERAN LATE SHRI BALKISHAN DAS SANDIA ROAD NARMADA COLONY PIPARIYA DISTT.HOSHANGABAD HOSHANGABAD- 2. RADHAKISHAN DHEERAN LATE SHRI BALKISHAN DAS CEMENT ROAD, OPP.PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK PIPARIA HOSHANGABAD 3 JAGDISH CHAND DHEERAN LATE SHR BALKISHAN DAS JYOTI KIRANA SHOP,MAIN ROAD BABAI HOSHANGABAD 4 RAMGOPAL DHEERAN LATE SHRI BALKISHAN DAS SANDIA ROAD, NARMADA COLONY PIPARIA HOSHANGABAD ...RESPONDENTS/ JUDGMENT DEBTORS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate for applicants. Shri Prem Khandelwal, Advocate for respondents. ________________________...
The Anjuman Islamiyan Trust Murwara Katni Vs. the M.P.Wakf Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Writ Petition No ::122. / 2013 The Anjuman Islamiyan Trust, Murwara versus MP Wakf Board and others 21.02.2013. Shri M.L.Jaiswal, Senior Advocate, with Shri K.K.Gautam for the petitioner. Shri Saleem Rehman for respondent No.1. Shri D.K.Tiwari for respondent No.4. Shri Vivek Rusia for respondent No.6. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate, for respondent No.7. Petitioner The Anjuman Islamiyan Trust, Murwara, Katni, has filed this writ petition and challenge in this writ petition is made to an order-dated 12.12.2012 passed by the MP Wakf Board, by which a Committee consisting of respondents 5 to 7 has been appointed for Management of the Wakf properties. Petitioner claims to be President of the Trust, which was created in the year 1927 and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, vide registration Annexure P/1. Referring to the bye-laws of the Trust, Shri Jaiswal learned Senior Advocate, argued that a detailed procedure for appointment of Mutwalli and Members of th...
Shiv Kumar Trivedi Vs. Smt. Uma Trivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
1 Cr.R. No.1517 of 2011 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1517/2011 Shiv Kumar Trivedi. -Vs- Smt. Uma Trivedi. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Harjas Singh Chhabra and Shri Jasmeet Hora, Advocates for the applicant. Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri Yogesh Soni, Advocate for the respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 21st day of February, 2013) By this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 30.7.2011 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.184/2011 whereby the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the JMFC (Shri Manot Kumar Sharma) Bhopal in MJ.No.15/2010 was modified that the applicant shall vacate the entire premises belonging to the respondent.2. The brief facts relating to the present revision are that the respondent Uma Trivedi...
B.C. Bhattacharya Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
W.P.No.9234/2011 21.2.2013 Shri K.N.Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.P.Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 that the amended copy of the writ petition is not made available to him and in case such a copy is given, he will seek instructions and if necessary, he will file the necessary additional return. Let a amended copy of the writ petition be delivered to learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 by tomorrow. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 will seek instructions and will file the response by the next date of listing. List in the next week. (K.K.Trivedi) JUDGE P/...
Yagya Narayan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.776/2012 Yagya Narayan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri Nishant Datt, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 20th day of February, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 3.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sidhi in S.T. No.46/11, whereby the charges of the offence punishable under Section 466 in alternate the Sections 167 or 218 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC we...
Rajnish Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
W.P.No.9740/2012 (R.K.Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.20.02.2013 Shri U.S.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. Dharmadhikari, learned G.A.for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/ State. Heard. In this writ petition the petitioner interalia seeks quashment of advertisement Annexure P/1 and a direction to the Gram Panchayat to appoint him on the post of Village Employment Assistant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the advertisement which was issued by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner had participated in the process of recruitment of Village Employment Assistant. The name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment by the Gram Panchayat, however, no action on the aforesaid recommendation was taken and a fresh advertisement Annexure P/1 has been issued for recruitment on the post of Village Employment Assistant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has submitted a representation Annexure P/5 to the Collector and the w...
Deen Bandhu Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 W.P.No.3053/2009 (s) 20.02.2013 Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State. Petitioner, a retired Accountant, School Education Department seeks direction to respondents to give him the benefit of Time Scale of Rs.4500-125-7000/-. On being notice respondents have filed the return wherein it is stated that pension of the petitioner has been refixed on the basis of scale of Rs.4500-125-7000/- w.e.f.1998 and that the benefit of Rs.250 as special pay as also been extended on 1.1.1996. It is further contended that with fresh fixation a sum of Rs.14331/- has also been paid to the petitioner being an arrears of special pay w.e.f.1.1.1996 to 31.1.2000. In view of the stand by the respondent and taking into consideration the revised pension payment order brought on record as Annexure R/1, no cause not survives for adjudication. The petition is accordingly disposed of having been rendered infructuous. No c...
M/S Nirmala Mishra Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.444/2005 20.02.2013 Parties through their respective counsel. Learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioner submitted that in case the respondent reports in the office of the petitioner on 21.2.2013, the cheque of the amount due to the petitioner under Section 17-B shall be handed over to him. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent shall appear in the office of the petitioner on 21.2.2013. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that if the respondent appears in the office of the petitioner on 21.2.2013, the cheque of the amount due to the petitioner shall be handed over to him on 21.2.2013 itself. As prayed, let the petition be listed for further orders in the week commencing 18.3.2013. (Alok Aradhe) Judge ks...
Ramesh Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.19700/2012 20.2.2013 Shri Deepak Pendharkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.5.1. Respondent no.5 is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Amirati, District Satna. He is facing the process of recalling under section 21-A of the Madhya Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short the Act.) before respondent no.4 Sub-Divisional Officer. Respondent no.4 by his order dated 3.11.2012 fixed the process for voting on 18.11.2012. Aggrieved, respondent no.5 filed a revision before respondent no.2 Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) under Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1995 (in short the Rules.) Respondent no.2 by the impugned order dated 7.11.2012 has stayed the process before respondent no.4. It is in this background the petitioner has rushed to this Court by submitting that since the order dated 3.11.2012 ...
C.P. Badoliya Vs. Shri Ketan Mehta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
W.P.No.2423/13 20/02/13 Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is a defendant in the civil suit filed by the plaintiff respondent No.1 and has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the inter locutory order dated 27/07/12 passed by the learned Additional Distt. Judge, Bhopal in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1(3) C.P.C. Respondent No.1 has instituted the suit against the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 with regard to the plot bearing not C-41 and in the said suit, written statement has been filed and certain applications for taking documents on record having been rejected, this writ petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the rival contentions, I see no reason to interfere into the matter at this inter locutory stage. The Court has found that the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings and finding the documents not t...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »