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.
Smt. Puniya Bai Vs. Smt. Vimla Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.4397/2013 01/04/2013 Shri Lal Gyanendra Singh Baghel and Shri Lal Dharmendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order Annexure-P1 dated 11.2.2013 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No.10-A/2012 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, petitioner has filed this writ petition. An application filed by the petitioner for taking on record statements of certain witnesses recorded in a criminal investigation under Section 151 of C.P.C has been rejected and, therefore, challenge is made to the order rejecting the said prayer. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed a suit in question for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.07.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that an agreement was entered with the husband of Respondent No.1 for purchase of the disputed land for a consideration of `3,60,000/-, out of which a sum of `2,86,000/- was paid to the ...
Harvendra Singh @ Pappu Vs. Smt. Sita Devi Thakur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.1050/2012 1.4.2013 Shri Ashok A. Tiwari, counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No.21023/2012, an application for payment of Streedhan amount. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the respondent No.1 may obtain the amount of Streedhan i.e.Rs.2,20,000/-, which is deposited before the trial Court with the condition that an undertaking may be given by the respondent No.1 that in case of return, the amount will be returned with interest @ 8% p.a.from the date of obtaining that amount from the trial Court to the date of return. If such type of undertaking is given by the respondent No.1 before the trial Court then that amount may be released in favour of the respondent No.1 temporarily. Certified copy as per rules. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra...
Yottam Lal Talke Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4839/20101. 04.2013 Shri Ramnaresh Vishwakarma, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal...
Smt. Dwarika Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4706/20101. 04.2013 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents-State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya & others versus State of M.P.& others [2006 (1) MPLJ 23 .as also in the case of Ram Naresh Pathak versus State of M.P.[W.P.No.13520/2006(S)].and the bunch of cases decided on 25.9.2006, the husband of the petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages of the period when he was not continued in the employment on account of making application of a circular and retiring the husband of the petitioner on completion of 30 years of service or attaining the age of 60 yeaRs.It is contended that he though was reinstated in service, such wages have not been paid to him. Considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra)...
Jagdeesh Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.419/2013 01.04.2013 Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicants have challenged the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.468/2012 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 306/34 and 498/34 of IPC were framed against the applicants. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 8.4.2012 the deceased was found dead. She was found hanged. The applicants are relatives of the husband of the deceased and the parents and other relatives of the deceased have made allegations against the applicants about the harassment. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the main grievance of the learned counsel for the applicants is that ...
Smt. Seema Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 W.P.No.4707/2013 1/4/2013: Shri Kamlakar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner is owner of land bearing Araji No.1100/0.50, 3227/0.17 total area 0.67 hectare situated in Patwari Halka No.28, Gram Kachauri Bhauar, Tahsil Shahnagar, District Panna and the land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1999 but no compensation or any benefit is granted to the petitioner. It is seen that an application and objection filed by the petitioner in this regard is submitted before respondents No.3 and 4 but no action is taken. Keeping in view the aforesaid, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, for the present it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, respondents No.3 and 4 shall examine the case of the petitioner and decide it in accordance to law by a speaking order within a period ...
Motilal Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.6079/2013 02/04/2013 Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. On a perusal of the material available on record and on considering the submissions made by Shri Anshuman Singh, it is clear that Scheme No.62 was brought into force vide notification with effect from 30th of October, 2006 and within a period of two years from the said date, the development authority had to commence the implementation of the scheme and thereafter, complete the implementation within a period of five years from the date of notification of the scheme, this having not been done, the scheme automatically lapsed by virtue of the provisions of Section 56 of the 1973 Act. As the scheme itself lapsed, the acquisition proceedings initiated in pursuance to the notification Annexure-P11 dated 20.3.2013, prima-facie, seems to be unsustainable. If the provisions of Section 54 & 56 of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh ...
Lal Chand Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.4895/2013 01.04.2013 Shri Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. It appears that though the pay fixation of the petitioner was checked way back in the year 2004 and certain notes were made by the Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts in the service book of the petitioner, at the relevant time the pay fixation of the petitioner was not done in appropriate manner. Subsequently on attaining the age of superannuation, the pay fixation of the petitioner is redone in the year 2013 and amount of recovery is calculated. Since not the petitioner has retired, the amount is sought to be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner and his claim has not been finalised. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that such a situation was examined by this Court in the case of Ram Siya Kanojia versus State of M.P.and others [2013(1) MPHT 447 .and the recovery orders were quashed. Learned Govt. Advocate submits ...
Vodafone Spacetel Limited Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.6055/2013 02/04/2013 Shri Brian D'Silva, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Bank versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 2005(6) SCC 404.prima-facie, it is seen that the petitioner has only displayed the name of the Company with regard to availability of the Company's outlets and facilities in the location or premises and it is not an advertisement as alleged in the notice. In view of this, further steps and coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 15.2.2013 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing and the Municipal Corporation is directed not to erase, demolish or deal with the display made by the petitioner without leave of this Court and the Company is granted liberty to restore the display if any...
Hari Prasad Vs. Gopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.15983/2011 02/04/2013 Shri Arun Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Jha, learned Sr.Advocate with K.S.Rajput, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Challenging the order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Harda interfering with an injunction granted by the trial court, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Even though, various grounds are raised in this writ petition challenging the interference made by learned appellate court, the fact remains that while issuing notice on 18.3.2011, status-quo was directed to be maintained and this order has continued for a period of more than one and half year not and prior to that, the injunction granted by the trial court was in operation. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing, this petition is allowed. The order of status-quo shall co...
- ‹ Prev
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- Next ›
- Last »