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.
M/S Ratan Construction Co. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
---1--- W.P.No.4869/2013 & W.P.No.5757/2013 24.4.2013 Shri P. Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4869/2013. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5757/2013. Shri P. Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondents/State. This order shall decide W. P.No.4869/2013 and W.P.No.5757/2013 involving similar questions raised on similar set of facts. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from W.P.No.4869/2013. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (i).Direct the respondents to clear and settle final pending bills submitted by the petitioner after successful completion of the works assigned to it as well as to refund the adjusted amount of royalty with 18% interest without insisting it to furnish royalty clearance certificate, at the earliest. (ii) Any other relief which Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Cost of the petition. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was ass...
M.G. Padmini Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
W.P.No.6476/2013 25/04/2013 Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Matter pertains to certain remarks made against the petitioner in a proceeding held before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. Petitioner is not a judicial officer working in the State of Madhya Pradesh, she is a judicial officer of the State of Kerela and she is on deputation and is posted as Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. That being so, the matter cannot be listed before this special bench, which is constituted for hearing the cases of judicial officers of the State of Madhya Pradesh. List the matter before the appropriate bench as per roster. (Rajendra Menon) (Alok Aradhe) Judge Judge nd...
Gorelal Kharol Vs. Shri R.S. Julaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
1 Conc. No.1430/2012 24/4/2013: Shri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the reply filed by the respondents and the order passed granting the benefit to the petitioner, for the present without initiating any action for contempt it is directed that actual benefit accruing out of the order be paid to the petitioner or credited to his account within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which petitioner shall be at liberty to bring to the notice of this Court any default committed by the respondents and this Court may initiate coersive action against the respondents. For the present without initiating any action against the respondents, this application is disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Vishwa Chetna Commune Audyogik Prashikshan Kendra Vs. Smt. Kiran Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
Vishwa Chetna Commune, Audyogik Prashikshan Kendra versus Smt. Kiran Gupta and another W.P.No.6734/13 24/04/13 Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order passed by the trial Court dismissing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. If an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is dismissed, remedy of revision under Section 115 is available and, therefore, the petition directly before this Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the aforesaid remedy available. Certified copy be returned back to the petitioner on his filing a photo-copy of the same. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Chandrika Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
1 W.P.No.1635/2013 24/4/2013: Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7. In view of the return filed by the respondents No.6 and 7 pointing out that the dispute raised by the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the subsequent order passed by Commissioner in accordance to law. Petition is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Interim order of stay also stands vacated in view of the above. Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. ( Rajendra MeNo.) Judge Mrs.mishra...
M/S Neeti Development and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
W.P.No.3123/2013 24/04/2013 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.A copy of this petition along with annexures be served on Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel who normally appears for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. A copy be also served on Shri Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 Notice be issued to Respondent No.4 on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Till the next date, status-quo in the matter, as is existing today, shall be maintained, as prima-facie, the objection raised under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 seems to be not decided in accordance with the requirement of law. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Ram Dulare Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
---1--- W.P.No.4869/2013 & W.P.No.5757/2013 24.4.2013 Shri P. Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4869/2013. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5757/2013. Shri P. Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondents/State. This order shall decide W. P.No.4869/2013 and W.P.No.5757/2013 involving similar questions raised on similar set of facts. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from W.P.No.4869/2013. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (i).Direct the respondents to clear and settle final pending bills submitted by the petitioner after successful completion of the works assigned to it as well as to refund the adjusted amount of royalty with 18% interest without insisting it to furnish royalty clearance certificate, at the earliest. (ii) Any other relief which Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Cost of the petition. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was ass...
Pappa Vs. Sayeeda Begum
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
Pappa (Dead) thr. Lrs Ruksana versus Sayeeda & Others Writ Petition No.7056 24. 4.2013: Shri Rajesh Awashty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 2.4.2013 passed by the learned III Civil Judge Class-II Sagar in Execution Case No.22A/1994 by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC and another application under Section 151 has been dismissed. On going through the records it is seen that Civil Suit No.22-A/1994 was filed by various persons including petitioner's husband Late Pappa S/o. Yadgar Hussain. Respondent nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 are either the original plaintiff or legal heirs of original plaintiff in the said suit. The suit in question which was filed jointly by all concerned including the petitioner's husband was decreed in the year 1997 itself and the fiRs.appeal and the second appeal were also dismissed and not the proceedings for execution are pending. At the...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Daya Sagar Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
State of M.P.& ORS.versus Daya Sagar Riwari Review Petition No.302 24. 4.2013: Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Satendra Jyotshi, learned counsel for respondent, on advance notice. Seeking review/recall of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(s) No.140/2005 on 8.2.2011, learned counsel for the State has filed this application for review. Interalia contending that while disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondent this Court had directed for regularization of the employee with effect from 13.7.1978. It is pointed out that the order passed by the Labour Court was to regularize the employee within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of the order, but this Court had inadvertently granted regularization from 13.7.1978. Having heard Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate and Shri Satendra Jyotshi, learned counsel for the respondent, who had appeared on advance notice, I find no error in the order passed by this Court...
Ku. Nusrat Begum Vs. Barkatulla University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
1 W.P.No.19494/2011 24/4/2013: Shri Ravi Shanker Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. During the couRs.of hearing of this writ petition this Court wanted to knot from the learned counsel as to what are the statutory provisions governing revolution. On the contrary, return filed by the respondents indicates that as per statutory ordinance, answer sheets has been destroyed and therefore, according to the respondents revaluation is not possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage prays for withdrawal of this writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition indicating the statutory provisions available for revaluation. Petition is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Petitioner may file fresh petition indicating the statutory provisions governing revaluation in the University. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ( Rajendra MeNo.) Judge Mrs.mishra...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »