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.
Anirudha Mukherjee Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
1 W.P.No.4375/2013 24/4/2013: Shri J.P.Shah and Shri Viplav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri K.K.Gautam, for respondent No.4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A.No.5787/2013 an application filed by respondent No.4 for dismissal of the writ petition on certain preliminary objections. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the State Government canceling the lease transfer order dated 4.10.2010. It is a case of respondent No.4 that the aforesaid order has been passed by the State Government exercising its statutory powers available under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 along with the statutory rules framed under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and as a statutory remedy of filing a revision before the Government of India namely the Mining Tribunal under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is available, it is emphasized that writ petition ...
Subhash Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
W.P.No.7370/2013 24/04/2013 Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners claim to be elected trusties of the Trust in question namely Shri 1008 Digambar Jain Atisya Kshetra Pappora Ji, Tikamgarh, Public Trust. It is the grievance of the petitioners that bye-laws of the Trust in question have been amended by Respondent No.4/ the President without following the due process of law and in an illegal manner. Making a complaint with regard to the illegal amendment of the bye-laws, an application is submitted to Respondent No.3 but as no action is taken, this writ petition is filed. Having heard Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the records, it is seen that pointing out certain illegality in the matter of amending the bye-laws, the complaint Annexure-P19 has been submitted by the petitioners before Respondent No.3. The Application/complaint is purported to be filed under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 and grievance of t...
M/S Highway Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. Chief Executive Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
1 W.P.No.6934/2013 M/s Highway Infrastructure Pvt.LTD.Chief Executive Officer, & others 24.4.2013 Shri Akash Choudhary, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Pankaj Dubey, Counsel for respondents. This petition is directed against an order dated 23.3.2013 Annexure P/11 by which contract of the petitioner was terminated and the bank guaratnee was invoked. An affidavit has been filed by the respondents raising a preliminary objection that under the agreement, Clause 24 provides a Dispute Redressal System and the petitioner before approaching this Court ought to have filed a dispute before the said forum. It is submitted that, that is an in-house forum available to the petitioner for redressal of the grievance under the agreement. The agreement is signed by both parties and the petitioner is bound to give effect to Clause 24 of the said agreement. Shri Akash Choudhary, leaned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondents have already taken a decision Annexure P/11, so providing a Dispute Red...
Arun Kumar Dubey (D) Thr Lrs Smt Sushila Dubey Vs. Smt. Pushparani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
Arun Kumar Dubey through LRs versus Smt. Pushparani.W.P. No.6474/13 24/04/13 Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.It is the defendants' petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an inter- locutory order passed by the trial Court rejecting an application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. for framing additional issues. It has been held by the Court that the issues framed are sufficient to decide the disputes between the parties and it is not necessary to frame any additional issue. The discretion exercised by the Court cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Hotilal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
W.P.No.7345/2013 24/04/2013 Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Considering the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the area in question from the time of their ancestors i.e.since 1953-54, in case, the respondents/State want to dispossess the petitioneRs.they shall do so but only after complying with the provisions as contemplated under the Land Revenue Code and any other statutory provision i.e.the respondents shall remove the petitioners only after following due process of law. Till the action is not taken in accordance with law, status- quo in the matter, as is existing today, shall be maintained. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Dr. Krishna Kant Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
1 MCC No.519/2013 24/4/2013: Shri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.753/2007 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 27.6.2007. On 27.6.2007 when the case was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner and as none had appeared, the petition was dismissed. The petition as indicated herein above was dismissed on 27.6.2007 and this application for restoration is filed after a period of more than five years 251 days. In the application for condonation of delay it is only stated that the local counsel at Bhopal informed the petitioner about the dismissal of the writ petition only on 3.4.2013 and therefore, there is delay in filing the restoration application. It is stated that earlier petitioner has engaged various other counsel but as the said counsel did not inform the petitioner he was not aware about the pendency of the writ petition. It is surprising that petitioner has filed the writ petition...
B.L. Pandey Vs. Shri J.N. Kansotia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
1 Conc. No.783/2012 24/4/2013: Shri Dileep Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, 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...
Smt.Binu a Mathew Vs. Major Ajay Mathew
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
M.C.C.No.941 24. 04-2013 Shri Devang Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the non-applicant. This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 24 of the C.P.C.praying for transfer of R.C.S.No.497-A/2012 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal to Jabalpur on the ground that one case being M.J.C.No.190/2012 is already pending between the parties at Jabalpur and that the applicant's parents are old and ailing and there is no male member in the family to accompany her to Bhopal. The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants submits that with the agreement of the parties the child i.e.a four yeaRs.daughter, namely, Angeline Mathew has already been handed over to the respondent and in such circumstances he does not oppose the prayer for transfer of R.C.S.No.497-A/2012 to Jabalpur. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. R.C.S.No.497- A/2012 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, ...
Arun Vs. Subhash
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
Arun versus Subhash and others.W.P. No.6342/13 24/04/13 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the defendant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an inter- locutory order passed by the trial Court rejecting an application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. for framing additional issues. It has been held by the Court that the issues framed are sufficient to decide the disputes between the parties and it is not necessary to frame any additional issue. The discretion exercised by the Court cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Union of India Vs. Hari Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
Union of India & ORS.versus Hari Prasad & Another Review Petition No.219 24. 4.2013: Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed for correcting the name of respondents' counsel, as indicated in the order dated 25.2.2013 passed in W.P.No.16846/2012. It is stated that Shri Govind Patel appeared for the respondents on advance notice and inadvertently the name of Shri Rohit Patel has been typed. Keeping in view the aforesaid, name of counsel who appeared on 25.2.2013 in W.P.No.16846/2012 for respondents be read as 'Shri Govind Patel' instead of 'Shri Rohit Patel'. With the aforesaid correction in the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16846/2012, the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »