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.
Mohanlal Kumhar (Prajapati) Vs. B.R. Naidu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1 Conc. No.1993/2011 29/4/2013: Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Vandana Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents. Respondents represented by MRS.Vandana Shroti has produced before me an order passed by the District Project Officer, Integrated Child Development, Narsinghpur, indicating rejection of petitioner's claim after consideration. The endorsement of the said document shows receipt of the same by the applicant at 9.20 a.m.Considering the fact that respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and rejected it, not no further indulgence is called for. In case petitioner has any grievance still subsisting, he may challenge it afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the application disposed of. ( Rajendra MeNo.) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Ashok Prathmik Upbhokta Bhandar Satna Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
W.P.No.5602/13 29/04/13 Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. As the question involved in the writ petition stands concluded by a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court from Bench Gwalior on 2/02/12 in W.A.No.52/12 Shaktipunj Anusuchit Jati Mahila bauddesiya sahakari sansthan maryadit gram panchayat diadari vikas khan, Ashok Nagar versus State of M.P.and others , this writ petition is decided with the aforesaid direction. The petitioner herein was alloted fair price shop under the scheme formulated by the Govt. of M.P.in accordance with the provisions of M.P.Public Distribution System. The scheme was formulated in the year 1991 and, thereafter, a statutory order namely the M.P.Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 came into force. In view of the coming into force of Control Order, 2009, the fair price shop alloted to the petitioner in accordance with the Scheme of 1991 was cancelled and, therefore, ...
Rituraj @ Tonu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Cr.R.No.364/2013 29.04.2013 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for the applicant. Shri Pushpraj Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on question of admission. Petition seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Learned counsel for the State takes notice of this admission. Record of the Courts below has already been requisitioned. Also heard on IA No.4843/2013, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. The applicant has been convicted under Section 25 (1-B) (A) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail. He has been falsely implicated. Revision would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of sentence awarded to the applica...
Dharmendra Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
W.A.281/2013 29.4.2013 Shri R.P.Mishra, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 13.3.2013 passed in W.P.17516/2012 by which Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner seeking direction against the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was dismissed. After arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant seeks withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to approach the respondent. Prayer is not opposed by Shri Dharmadhikari, hence allowed. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) ( M.A.Siddiqui) Acting Chief Justice Judge sb W.P.No.6938/2013 29.4.2013 Petitioner in person. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional A.G.Appears for respondents No.1,3,4, and 5. Shri Kaurav prays for short time to seek instructions in the matter. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing after a week. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) ( M.A.Sid...
Keshri Prasad Kesharwani Vs. Panna Lal Kesharwani and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1 S.A.No.485/2003 Keshri Prasad Kesharwani versus Pannalal Kesharwani & ORS.29.04.2013 Shri Amit Khatri learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2003 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge Sidhi in Civil Appeal No.52-A/02 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1985 passed by the FiRs.Civil Judge Class-II Deosar, District Sidhi in Civil Suit No.25-A/1980 has been affirmed and confirmed. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and partition in respect of land bearing KhaSr.Nos.113/3 and 113/7 of village Bargawan, Tehsil Deosar, alleging that the said land was initially leased out by the State to Param Sukh, father of the plaintiff and on his death, his son Pannalal had equal share in the property alongwith appellant Keshri Prasad. The suit was decreed by the trial court ...
Shrikant Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Writ Petition No ::20061. / 2011 Shrikant Pandey and others versus State of MP and others 29.04.2013. Shri Ashish Rawat for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, PL, for the State. Shri Manas Verma for respondent No.4. Petitioners are small shop owneRs.who have established their business by selling Prasad and other material in the precincts of the Temple, in Maihar. Grievance of the petitioners are that they have been allotted Shop No.1, 2 and 3, constructed by respondent No.4, they have deposited the premium of `50,000/- each, they are required to deposit a further premium `3,51,000/-, but as the respondents have proposed to cancel their allotment, they have approached this Court. On being noticed, respondents 2 to 4 have filed reply and in paragraph 7 of the said reply, the following averments are made: 7. That, it is most respectfully submitted that respondents 2 to 4 have constructed shopping complex after incurring heavy expenditure with the object that worship material is made avail...
Manrakhan Shah Vs. Girdhari Lal Shah
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
W.P.No.6052/13 29/04/13 Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned counsel with Shri Abhishek Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.K.Bais, learned counsel for the caveator. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 2/03/2013 by which certain preliminary issues with regard to taking on record a counter claim by the respondents has been allowed and the preliminary issue decided. Challenging the said inter locutory order, this writ petition is filed. Petitioner is a plaintiff and is challenging and filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction with regard to possession over the suit property. Respondents/defendants have filed a counter claim. Initially, various issues were framed and when preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of counter claim was not decided by the Court below, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.2260/12 and on 22/02/12, this Court directed the Court below to decide the preliminary issue...
Lavkush Prasad Tiwari Vs. Ramlakhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.7042/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by four revenue courts namely, Tehsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue treating the petitioner to be an encroacher and directing him to remove the encroachment from the area in question, this writ petition has been filed. The concurrent orders passed are challenged mainly on the ground that treating the petitioner to be an encroacher and the property in question belonging to one Munna Lal, orders have been passed but it is the petitioner, who is the actual owner of the property, the orders passed are not sustainable. Learned counsel asked to point out that as to how the aforesaid question is dealt with by the revenue court, the counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out the same. Once the concurrent findings are recorded and the material available does not go to show that the Munna Lal is the owner of the prope...
Manoj Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Writ Petition No ::7504. / 2013 Manot Kumar versus State of MP and others 26.04.2013. Shri K.L.Gupta for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, PL, for the State, on advance notice. Challenging the proceedings initiated by the Nazul Officer, Bhopal in the matter of construction of a house by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. It is the case of the petitioner that after purchasing the property in question, after proper mutation and after seeking permission from the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal the construction is being carried out, but all of a sudden respondent No.3 submitted an objection before respondent No.2 and taking cognizance of the same, respondent No.2 vide Annexure P/1 dated 24.12.2012, has initiated certain action against the petitioner and stayed the construction. Challenging the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner has filed this writ petition directly without raising any objection or seeking disposal of the com...
Devi Singh Vs. Prabhulal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
M.C.C.No.381/13 26-04-2013 Heard Shri Amit Verma, learned counsel for applicant on I.A.No.5066/13 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 S.A.No.1261/2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the due to some reason he could not pay the PF within the stipulated period which resulted in dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance of peremptory order 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 04.02.2013 passed in S.A No 1261/11 and the same is directed to be restored to its original number. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of S.A.No.1261/11. C.C.as per rules. (R.S....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »