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 Adinath Marble Udhyog Prop. Vindal Fertilizers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. the St ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.2757/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Shreyash Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Amendment as prayed for vide I.A.No.5101/2013 is allowed. Amendment be incorporated within two days and, thereafter, notice be issued to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, keeping in view the circular issued by the Central Government as contained in Annexure-P6 dated 9.10.2001 issued by the Secretary, prima-facie, recovery of the dead rent from the petitioner seems to be unsustainable. In view of the above, the recovery ordered vide Annexure- P5 dated 19.7.2012 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Birla Corporation Limited Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
1 MCC No.436/2013 Birla Corporation Ltd.& another State of M.P.& others 26.4.2013 Shri Atul Choudhary, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.AG for respondents. This application is filed for restoration of Writ Petition No.3511/2007 dismissed in default on 22.3.2013 because none had appeared on behalf of the petitioneRs.It is submitted by the petitioners that the counsel for petitioners was busy before another Bench, so he could not appear in the case when the case was called and dismissed in default. From the perusal of the record, we find that the case was listed after 18.1.2012, on 29.10.2012, 5.3.2013, 11.3.2013 and lastly on 22.3.2013, but none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. It appears that no explanation was given by the petitioners for their absence in all the aforesaid dates. However, considering reasons stated for the absence on last date of hearing i.e.22.3.2013, we find it appropriate to allow this app...
Kanhaiyalal Kamdaar Vs. Ragistrar Firms and Societies
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
1 W.P.No.7035/2013 26/4/2013: Shri Maninder S. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners claims to be the Member of the Society under the M.P.Society Regestikaran Adhiniyam and pointing out various illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of election and mismanagement of the Society, an application under Section 40 of the M.P.Societies Registration Act has been submitted to the Registrar, Firms and Society vide Annexure P/ 10 . On the ground that no action is taken by the said authority, this writ petition has been filed and in the writ petition prayer made is to quash the election and to take action against the Society. The Society in question is a private unaided society and is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, no writ of mandamus or prohibition can be issued to the Society in the manner as prayed for. However, if the proceedings under Section 40 initiated before the Registrar, Firms and Society, is maintainable then the Registrar ...
Bindeshwari Prasad Shrivastava Vs. Reena Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Bindeshwari Prasad Shrivastava versus Reena Bai & Others Writ Petition No.6898 26. 4.2013: Shri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an order passed by the court below on 12.3.2013 rejecting an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Respondents have filed claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle, has impleaded in the proceedings an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC contending that he has sold the vehicle in the year 2002 to one Shri Sukhchain Rajak and, therefore, Shri Sukhchain Rajak be impleaded as party. This application has been rejected by the court below on the ground that in the document of registry of vehicle and other material available, petitioner is shown as owner of the vehicle and the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot be allowed as the ownership of the vehicle is still with the petitioner...
Sarita Pawar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.4175/2013 26.04.2013 Smt. Shimla Jain, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, Advocate for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. I.A.No.5447/2013 for withdrawal of the writ petition. Considering the controveRs.involved in this case, we are of the opinion that this application should be considered on the next date of hearing. The counsel for the petitioners Shri Nitin Jain to remain personally present before this Court on next date of hearing. Petitioner Sarita Pawar of this petition and petitioner Abhay Narayan Singh of W.P.No.4165/2013 are not present. Their Pairokar Praveen DhaRs.is also not present. It is stated by Smt. Jain that she has no instructions on behalf of them. In view of the aforesaid, we direct issuance of bailable warrant of Rs.500/- for their personal presence before this Court on the next date of hearing. The Superintendent of Police, Bhopal is directed to execute the war...
Shakuntala Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Irriga ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.16194/12 26/04/13 Shri R.N.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikas Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Office has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition mainly on the ground that for execution of the award in question which was passed on 3/02/1990, statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under the M.P.Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam and, therefore, the petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the statutory remedy is not maintainable. Petitioner wants execution of the decree passed in the matter. As a detailed remedy is available to the petitioner for getting the order executed, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere into the matter, instead, petitioner should take recouRs.to the remedy available and get the award executed in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, this petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Bhawan Ayam Anya Nirman Mazdoor Ekta Fedration M.P. Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.8025/2013 (P.I.L.) 26.04.2013 Shri S.K.Dubey, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Government Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Petitioners are directed to serve respondent No.2 by Hamdust service. Steps by next working day. Notice be made returnable before next date of hearing. Be listed for hearing on 03.05.2013. Till next date of hearing, it is directed that the respondent No.2 shall not use the welfare fund of the Board for any other purpose, except for those, which are provided under the Madhya Pradesh Bhawan Aur Anya Sannirman Karmkar (Niyojan Tatha Seva-Sharton Ka Viniyaman) Niyam, 2002. C.C.today. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Acting Chief Justice Judge psm...
Dayal Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.7121/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, 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-P9 dated 20.3.2013, prima-facie, seems to be unsustainable. If the provisions of Section 54 & 56 of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Ad...
Smt. Asha Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
WA No.271 o26. 4.2013. Shri S.D.Gupta for the appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.AG for the respondents and to 3 on advance notice. Shri Devendra Gangrade for respondent No.6. This petition is directed against an order dt.13.3.13 passed in W.P.No.3699/12 by which a learned single Judge of this Court after hearing both the parties directed vacation of the ad-interim writ passed in writ petition. After arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant would be satisfied if the main matter is heard and decided by the writ Court at an early date. The aforesaid prayer is not opposed by learned cousnel for the respondents. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this appeal with a request to the learned Single Judge to hear and decide the W.P.No.3688/12 expeditiously. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Acting Chief Justice Judge Khan*...
Chaganmal Nema @ Chaganlal Nema Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Writ Petition No ::1015. / 2009 Chaganmal Nema @ Chaganlal Nema versus Smt. Pushpa Devi and others 26.04.2013. Shri Shobhitaditya for the petitioner. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction with regard to the property in question situated in Ibrahimpura, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal. Respondent is defendant and after the trial of the suit had commenced, an application for amendment was filed by the respondents seeking for certain amendment in the written statement. The amendment has been allowed by the impugned order dated 22.10.2008 Annexure P/8 and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court challenging the same. The amendment prayed for by the defendants was that in certain places in the written statement typing error has been committed in as much as the figure 5 and 7 have been recorded, which should be corrected as 7 and . This amendment has been allowed and petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »