Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Basant Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.7079/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Aseem Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the action of the respondents in terminating the agreement of the petitioner with regard to the collection of Toll Tax, petitioner has filed this writ petition. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the competent authority of the respondents for the purpose of collecting Toll Tax on the Road from Garhakota to Pathariya. The Agreement was for a period from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013, petitioner complied with the requirements and while working in accordance with the agreement, vide Annexure-P5 dated 18.2.2013, the agreement has been terminated from the midnight of 18.2.2013 on the ground that widening of the road is to be undertaken and due to the said work, the collection of the Toll Tax is not possible and, therefore, the agreement is terminated. Inter-alia contending that the agreement has been terminated in an arbitrary and illegal manner, the petitioner has paid the requisite ...
Mangal Prasad Vs. Krishna Kumar Khandelwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Writ Petition No ::7445. / 2013 Mangal Prasad versus Krishna Kumar Khandelwal 26.04.2013. Shri A.K.Choubey for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a separate application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, giving particulars of the purchase made by the plaintiff and supported by documents and other material to show that during the pendency of the proceedings, property has been acquired by the plaintiff and, therefore, the need does not arise. Permission granted. If an application is filed in accordance with law, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Smt. Vimla Vs. Digamber RaIn Panchayart Kameti,seoni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Second Appeal No.259 / 2009 ( Smt. Vimla & others ..Vs.Shri Digambar Jain Panchayat Kameti, Seoni & others ) 26-04-2013 Shri R.P.Khare, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16-12-2008 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Seoni, in Civil Appeal No.59-A/2007, affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 7-2-2004, passed by the Second Civil Judge Class I, Seoni, in Civil Suit No.299- A/2002 whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed by the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the respondents, in spite of admitting that it was a registered society registered under the provisions of Societies Registrikaran Adhinyam, 1973, have also sought exemption on the ground that it is a registered trust by relying upon the notification issued by the State Govern...
Ghasiram Patel Vs. Shri Rajneesh Vais
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
1 Conc. No.607/2011 26/4/2013: Shri Manot Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. Applicant is a senior citizen and his grievance is that his claim has not been considered for pay fixation under Fundamental Rule 22D in accordance with the direction issued on 19.8.2010 in W.P.No.20275/2003. On notice being issued, respondents have tried to justify their action but after taking note of the submissions made by the respondents on 8.11.2011 this Court was prima facie of the view that compliance has not been properly done and therefore, time was granted to the respondents to take proper steps. Today Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner shall be reconsidered and fresh decision taken after considering the directions issued in the original writ petition. Keeping in view the submissions made by Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, for the present without taking any coersive action, it is directed that resp...
Subhash Subramanium Vs. Revashankar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
M.C.C.No.234/13 26-04-2013 Heard Shri Devesh Khatri, learned counsel for applicant on I.A.No.4492/13 for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration which is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant. The application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Also heard on the application for restoration of MCC No.1478/12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being a poor person could not deposit the cost of Rs.2000/- within the stipulated period as directed by this court on 02.01.2013 in MCC No.1478/12 as a result of which M.A.No.1597/06 could not be restored to its original number. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the amount has been deposited on 08.02.2013. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.01.2013 passed in MCC No...
Devansh Yadav Vs. Collector Mandla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
1 W.P.No.7802/2013 26/4/2013: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikas Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenging the process initiated by the respondents for inviting tender for operation of grant of mining lease, this writ petition has been filed. Mining lease has been granted for certain sand quarry in District Mandla and clause 23 of the tender document Annexure P/2 wherein certain conditions are imposed with regard to the carrying capacity of the vehicle to be used for carrying the mines and mineral is said to be arbitrary. On the grounds raised in the writ petition with regard to one of the tender condition at this stage, no case is made out for interference particularly when the action is being conducted in accordance to the M.P.Minot Mineral Rules and statutory remedy of appeal and revision are available in the said statutory rules itself. Accordingly, finding no case for interference, this petition is dismissed. ( Rajendra MeNo.) Judg...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Komal Prasad Rajoriya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
State of M.P.and others versus Dr. Komal Prasad Rajoriya and another R.P.No.13/12 26/04/13 Shri Rajendra Mishra, learned Govt. Adv.for the appellants. This review application has been filed seeking review/recall of an order passed by this Court on 16/02/10 in W.P.No.9443/ 08 (s).In the writ petition, petitioner came out with a case that he is discharging the duties of an 'Assistant Vaidya' in a dispensary run by the Janpad Panchayat. After abolition of the Janpad Panchayat, the dispensary was taken over by the State Govt and a dispute has risen with regard to absorption of services of the petitioner in the State Govt. In the writ petition, it was the case of the appellants that for the purpose of considering the claim of the petitioneRs.a scrutiny committee was constituted and the scrutiny committee has submitted a report recommending the case of the petitioneRs.The proceedings and the report of the scrutiny committee were filed as Annexures P-15 and P-16 in the original writ petition....
Sudarshan Sahu Vs. Kanchan Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.6548/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Abhishek Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging an order passed by the Board of Revenue as contained in Annexure-P16 dated 18th of March, 2013 in the matter of mutation of the land in question, this writ petition has been filed. By the impugned order, the Board of Revenue has approved mutation of certain share of the land in question in favour of the respondents based on the sale deed dated 9.3.1969. Referring to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa as contained in Annexure-P15 and the findings recorded in Para-12 & 13 thereof, Shri Abhishek Gulatee argued that the Tehsildar had ordered for mutation without hearing the petitioners and without due notice to them and on taking note of these facts, the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar for fresh ordeRs.It is emphasized that as the mutation was ordered by the Tehsildar without notice to the petitioners and wit...
Jay Karan Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.6936/13 26/04/13 Shri V.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikas Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Pointing out that the Returning Officer respondent No.6 in the matter of conducting election to the Co-operative Society has committed certain default which amounts to misconduct, this writ petition is filed for taking action against the Returning Officer. It is stated that after the misconduct was committed, another Returning Officer was appointed for conducting the election and a representation filed is not being looked into and action is not being taken, this writ petition is filed. If the Returning Officer has committed misconduct, it is the procedural defect committed in the election, merely, on the basis of the allegations levelled in the petition, without conducting the enquiry into the matter, it is not appropriate for this Court to issue any direction. That apart, if any direction is given, it may have adveRs.effect on the election itself or the r...
Ram Sahay Nagrik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.1321 OF 200.Shri Ram Sahay Nagrik Petitioner versus State of M. P. and another Respondents Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra MeNo........................................................................................................... Shri R. S. Khare for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State and respondent No.3 the Collector. Shri Vikram Singh for respondent No.2. .................................................................................................. ORDER (26/04/13) As per Rajendra Menon, J:- Petitioner who is 82 years of age and whose claim for grant of 'Samman Nidhi' under a scheme formulated by the State Govt. having been rejected, has filed this writ petition and this is the 3rd round of litigation in the matter.2. Petitioner's claim is that he is a freedom fighter, had participated in the freedom movement in the then existing State of Orchha not in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »