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.
Shailendra Rele Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2363/2013 20.2.2013 Shri Pramod Chaturvedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the State. According to the petitioner, on his complaint against respondent no.6, who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hinauti, District Panna, proceedings under section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, have been initiated by respondent no.2 Sub-Divisional Officer, Gunnaur, District Panna, vide order dated 25.5.2012. The main grievance of petitioner is that respondent no.2 is not taking effective steps to conclude the proceedings which is contrary to the mandate of second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 40. The petitioner has , therefore, prayed that respondent no.2 be directed to decide the proceedings on an early date. To this prayer, the learned Government Advocate has fairly agreed. I, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, finally dispose of this petition...
Bhupendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
---1--- W.A.No.76/2013 20.2.2013 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the caveatORS.Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State. With consent heard finally. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 16.1.2013 passed in W.P.No.634/2013 by learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. We see no reason to interfere in the order passed by learned Single Judge, because the petitioner is having remedy to challenge the subject matter by way of filing the Election Petition. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge AK...
Awadhesh Kumar Pushpkar Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.2445/2013 20.2.2013 Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner appeared in the 12th Class examination held by the respondent Board of Secondary Education. According to the petitioner his answer books of Chemistry and Physics subjects have not been properly valued. He has also filed the copies of the answer books of Chemistry and Physics subjects as Annexure P3 and P5 along with the petition. Admittedly, there is no legal provision for revaluation of the answer books. The Supreme Court has held that in the absence of provision for revaluation of answer book the Court should refrain from issuing any direction for revaluation. Apart from this the counsel for petitioner could not demonstrate from the answer books filed as to how they have been improperly valued. I, therefore, find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE ss...
Ashok Kumar Dasore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Criminal Revision No.2198/2012 20.02.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Heard on IA No.23470/12, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that a delay of one year has been caused in filing the present revision against the order of framing of charges. There is no any reason mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. It is mentioned that due to ignorance of the fact, the revision could not be filed within time. By perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the applicant as well as his counsel was present before the trial Court at the time of framing of charges, therefore the applicant was aware about the impugned order. Under such circumstances, if the revision is filed with a delay of one year, then there must be a cognate reason to condone such delay. Th...
Smt. Raju Bai Vs. Rajkumar Trivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
M.C.C.No.150 / 2013 (Smt. Raju Bai .v.Rajkumar and another) 20-02-2013 Heard Shri Ishtiyaq Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner on the application for restoration of S.A.No.63/2000. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that concerned file was not traceable in his office and it was informed by his clerk that perhaps the file has been returned to the defendant/appellant. It is stated that this fact on being brought to the notice of this Court on 18-1-2013 the appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that later on the concerned file was recovered in his office from the bunch of disposed of second appeals, therefore, it is prayed that S.A.No.63/2000 be restored to its original number. The application is supported by an affidavit and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. S.A.No.63/2000 be restored to its original number...
Mohan Singh Chouhan Vs. Smt. Bhartibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No :2538. / 2013 Mohan Singh Chouhan versus Smt. Bharti Bai and others 20.02.2013. Shri G.S.Ahluwalia for the petitioner. Considering the fact that an application filed by the petitioner under section 38 of the MP Accommodation Control Act, is pending before respondent No.3, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.3 is directed to decide the same after hearing all concerned within a period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Hari Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Second Appeal No.162/2013 (Hari Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.20.02.2013 Heard Shri K.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 18.12.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.3-A/12 by District Judge, Harda affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2012 passed in C.S.No.73- A/09 by the fiRs.Civil Judge Class-II, Harda whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking issuance of mandatory injunction for return of 0.35 acres of land bearing khaSr.No.27/1 situated in Tahsil and District Harda, has been dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff/appellant's land admeasuring 1.90 acres of khaSr.No.27/1 was proposed to be acquired by the respondents/State under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act out of which 1.55 acres of land was returned but 0.35 acres of land was acquired. It is submitted that the authority...
Smt. Shanti Devi Shukla Vs. Tirath Prasad Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
C.R.163/2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR CIVIL REVISION No.163 of 2007 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA Applicant : Smt. Shanti Devi Shukla W/o of Shri Mahendra Prasad Shukla, residing at Village Balpurva, Tahsil- Sohagpur, Police Station Shahdol District Shahdol (M.P.) Versus Respondent : Tirath Prasad Shukla S/o Ramdas Shukla, residing at Village Lalbad, Police Station-New Ramnagar, Tahsil Amarpatan, District Satna --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant by - Shri Yaduwendra Dwivedi, Advocate Respondent by - Shri Brijesh Mishra, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (20/02/2013) This revision application under Section 115 CPC has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by learned Third Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court).Shahdol in Misc. Civil Appeal No.14/06 whereby the appeal of th...
Mahendra Kumar Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
M.C.C.No.180/2013 20.02.2013 MRS.Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 4. Heard. This application has been filed for modification of order dated 31.1.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order impugned in the W.P.No.803/2003 is dated 28.12.2002. However, due to typographical error it has been typed as 18.12.2012. The aforesaid statement is not disputed by learned Panel Lawyer. Accordingly, it is directed that the date of impugned order shall be read as 28.12.2002 instead of 18.12.2012. This order shall be read in conjunction with order dated 31.1.2013. Accordingly, the M.C.C.stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC...
B.S. Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
B.S.Sharma versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.2125 20. 2.2013: Shri S.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Challenging certain recommendations made by the Collector Bhopal in his communication dated 11.4.2012 with regard to taking action against the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner has been granted Dealership for distribution of LPG Gas by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation LTD.He is running establishment in the name and style of M/S.Nainika Enterprises, Shahpura, Bhopal. It is found that the petitioner was transporting Gas CylindeRs.an inspection under the Weight and Measure Act was conducted and the weight of the cylinders were found to be below the prescribed norms as provided in the statute, therefore, a case has been registered and petitioner is being proceeded against for violation of Weight and Measure Act. In the meanwhile for the irregularities committed by the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »