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.
Smt. Maina Bai Vs. Shri Shailendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Smt. Maina Bai & Another versus Shri Shailendra Singh & Others Conc. No.1440 28. 2.2013: Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, learned counsel for non-applicants. In W.P.No.12824/2010 on 15.12.2010 this Court has directed the non-applicants to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the law laid down in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and take a decision for regularization. Non-applicants have rejected the claim vide order dated 15.11.2012 and, therefore, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt. In case petitioner is still aggrieved, she may challenge the subsequent action afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and application is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/...
Praveen Kumar Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
W.P.No.10031/2012 Praveen Kumar Yadav State of M.P.& another 28.2.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.K.Tripathi, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. A.G., for respondents alongwith Dr.Guha present. In W.P.No.18906/2011 (Sanjay Yadav versus State of M.P.& another).which is identical in nature, we have passed an order today, which reads thus :- 28.2.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.K.Tripathi, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondents alongwith Dr.Guha present. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the record of the Central Forensic Laboratory Chandigarh which is in possession of the respondents. (ii) That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 6.5.2010 (Annexure P/4) in its entirety. (iii) That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, this Hon'ble...
Middle India Radhasoami Medical Relief Society Vs. Harru
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 W.P.No.3400/2012 & W.P.No.3401/2012 28/2/2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Imtiaz Hussain and Smt. Nidhi Verma for the petitioner. Shri P.R.Bhave, learned Senior Counsel with Shri J.K.Verma for the respondents. In both these petitions challenges are made to the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in the matter of deciding the applications filed for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. Petitioners in both these petitions are plaintiffs and they claim to be the title holder and Bhumiswami of the land. It is said that these lands were given to the private respondents every year on the basis of a system which is knot as "Khot". Dispute arose between the parties with regard to the possession of the land. Plaintiffs petitioners claim that after the period for which the land was given on Khot in the agricultural year 2009-2010 was over the petitioners were themselves cultivating the land but as the respondents, who belong to the Adiwas...
Dr. A. K. Dixit Vs. Shri B. P. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Dr. A.K.Dixit versus Shri B.P.Singh & Another Conc. No.1252 28. 2.2013: Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned counsel for non-applicants. Considering the fact that the adveRs.entry which were directed to be expunged have already been expunged vide order dated 16.8.2012, no further action is required to be taken in these proceedings. In case applicant feels that on account of expunging of entries in his C.R, applicant's case for promotion has to be considered and action taken at par with his immediate juniORS.who has been promoted, he has to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance to law. Accordingly, on the ground that directions were issued to expunge the adveRs.entries in C.R., I see no reason to proceed further. So far as the grounds that review DPC has not been held and applicant's case has not been considered, further promotion of applicant and holding of review DPC is a fresh cause for which proceedings should be initiated afresh. In ...
Brajendra Singh Rajpoot Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
W.P.No.17324/2012 Brajendra Singh Rajpoot State of M.P.& another 28.2.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.K.Tripathi, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. A.G., for respondents alongwith Dr.Guha present. In W.P.No.18906/2011 (Sanjay Yadav versus State of M.P.& another).which is identical in nature, we have passed an order today, which reads thus :- 28.2.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.K.Tripathi, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G., for respondents alongwith Dr.Guha present. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the record of the Central Forensic Laboratory Chandigarh which is in possession of the respondents. (ii) That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 6.5.2010 (Annexure P/4) in its entirety. (iii) That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, this Hon...
Bharti Infratel Limited Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 M. Cr.C.NO.11844/2010 28.2.2013. Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.K.Chourasiya, learned PL for the respondent/ State. Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petition is heard finally. During the couRs.of the argument it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Generator used by the petitioners company as alleged to have created nuisance has been replaced by the inverter, therefore there is no noise, pollution. This fact can be verified only producing the evidence or spot inspection which could be done by the learned trial Court i.e.the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Damoh in Criminal Case No.360/09. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to verify the fact that whether nuisance as alleged by the petitioners is still continued or not and pass fresh order after recording the evidence or spot inspection as deemed necessary by the trial Court. The petition is di...
Middle India Radhasoami Charitable Society Vs. Harru
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 W.P.No.3400/2012 & W.P.No.3401/2012 28/2/2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Imtiaz Hussain and Smt. Nidhi Verma for the petitioner. Shri P.R.Bhave, learned Senior Counsel with Shri J.K.Verma for the respondents. In both these petitions challenges are made to the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in the matter of deciding the applications filed for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. Petitioners in both these petitions are plaintiffs and they claim to be the title holder and Bhumiswami of the land. It is said that these lands were given to the private respondents every year on the basis of a system which is knot as "Khot". Dispute arose between the parties with regard to the possession of the land. Plaintiffs petitioners claim that after the period for which the land was given on Khot in the agricultural year 2009-2010 was over the petitioners were themselves cultivating the land but as the respondents, who belong to the Adiwas...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Tufan Singh Patle
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.C.C.No.239/2008 28.02.2013 Shri Sanjay Roy, Panel Lawyer, for the applicants. Shri S.S.Tiwari, Advocate for respondent. This application is filed for recall/modification of order dated 09.05.2007 in Contempt Petition No.932/2006 on the premises that the contempt case was finally disposed of in view of a letter of Chief Minister dated 26.07.2006 while aforesaid letter was a fake one and on the basis of the alleged letter, the matter could not have been disposed of finally. The application is also barred by limitation, so the applicants have filed another application I.A.No.1136/2008 seeking condonation of delay in filing this M.C.C.Though the prayer is opposed vehemently by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, but considering the peculiar facts of the case, prayer is allowed. Delay is condoned. Heard on M.C.C.No.239/2008. Respondent, by filing written objections, have stated that the applicants have to approach to the Apex Court, if they were of the opinion that the order dat...
Smt.Archana Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 W.P.No.9326/2008 28.02.2013 Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri P.C.Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Shri K.L.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. As prayed by learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6, four weeks' time is allowed to file return to the writ petition. It is contended that since the writ petition was dismissed at motion stage and has been restored and remitted back only after passing an order by the Division Bench in writ appeal, no return was filed on earlier occasion. However, looking to the facts and circumstances that the petitioner has been granted an interim stay, it is made clear that the petition would be heard without the return of respondents in case the return is not filed within the time allowed. I.R.to continue. List immediately after four weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj. 2 W.P.No.9326/2008...
Piyush Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 M. Cr.C.NO.2104/13. 28.2.2013. Shri Shanshank Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Chourasiya, learned PL for the respondent/ State. Shri Brajesh Choubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The petition is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C.For correction in the order dated 6.2.2013 passed by this Court in M. Cr.C.No.255/13, in which due to oversight it has been mentioned that the petitioner has submitted the forged documents for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III while the documents were submitted for appointment on the post of Patwari. Considering the averments petition is allowed and the order dated 6.2.2013 passed in M. Cr.C.No.255/13 in paragraph 1 of description such words Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II. is omitted and substituted by Patwari.The impugned order shall modify accordingly. The Registry is directed to supply the certify copy of this order to the petitioner. A copy of this or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »