Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Seikh Mohammad Mehboob Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P.No.12807/2012(S) Sheikh Mohammed Mehboob -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Sushil Mishra,, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for State/ respondents No.1 to 3. Shri A. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the intervener. ORDER (17.5.2013) 1: This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.7.2012, by which the petitioner, a Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, has been transferred from Panagar to Bhind, mainly on the ground that on account of malafides of respondent No.4 against whom the action was initiated by the petitioner, untimely proposal was sent for transfer of the petitioner and only on account of such malafides since the petitioner has been transferre...
Smt. Geeta Patel Vs. Chandra Kishore Rajput
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Writ Petition No ::9089. / 2013 Smt. Geeta Patel and others versus Chandrakishore Rajput and others 17.05.2013. Shri P.K.Sahu for the petitioneRs.Petitioners are legal representatives of Late Deena Nath Patel. Petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner No.2 is the minot daughter and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are parents of Late Deena Nath Patel. Deena Nath Patel died in a road accident and, therefore, a claim was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The claim was decided vide award dated 11.2.2013 Annexure P/1 and an award of `8,02,600/- was passed. Out of this amount, a sum of `1,00,000/- was directed to be paid to petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the parents of Late Deena Nath Patel. A sum of `3,00,000/- was directed to be paid to petitioner No.2 Ku. Prapati Patel, minot daughter; and, the remaining amount of `3,02,600/- was directed to be paid to petitioner No.1, wife of Late Deena Nath Patel. A sum of `1,00,000/- was paid to petitioner No.1 and the remaining amount was directed to be ke...
Shaukat Ali Vs. Commissioner, Revenue Division Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Writ Petition No ::9079. / 2013 Shaukat Ali versus Commissioner, Revenue Division, Bhopal 17.05.2013. Shri S.K.Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the respondent on advance notice. Considering the fact that the appeal filed under section 44(2) of the MP Land Revenue Code is pending before respondent Commissioner, Revenue Division, Bhopal, since 22.9.2009, as is evident from the material available on record, respondent Commissioner, Revenue Division, Bhopal is directed to decide the appeal in accordance to law after hearing all concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Darshan Singh Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Darshan Singh Verma versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.9258 17. 5.2013: Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Laywer for the State. It is seen that with regard to social status of caste of petitioner and his son, certain complaints have been made by one Shri Sujit Rathore and others and the said complaint is pending before the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government and based on certain clarifications sought for report from the Collector and the Superintendent of Police have been submitted and certain other clarification are in the process of being submitted. Grievance of petitioner is that due to pendency of complaint and matter before the High Level Scrutiny Committee certain rights accruing to petitioner are being adversely effected and, therefore, prayer made is that the High Level Committee be directed to decide the complaint filed against petitioner in accordance to law within reasonab...
Nanne Khan Vs. Commissioner, Revenue Division, Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Writ Petition No ::9077. / 2013 Nanne Khan versus Commissioner, Revenue Division, Bhopal 17.05.2013. Shri S.K.Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the respondent on advance notice. Considering the fact that the appeal filed under section 44(2) of the MP Land Revenue Code is pending before respondent Commissioner, Revenue Division, Bhopal, since 22.9.2009, as is evident from the material available on record and considering the fact that petitioner is more than 80 years of age, respondent Commissioner, Revenue Division, Bhopal is directed to decide the appeal in accordance to law after hearing all concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Smt. Nabbobai Ladiya Vs. Grih Finance Limited, Ahamdabad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Smt. Nabbobai Ladiya & Anr, versus Grih Finance LTD.& Anr. Writ Petition No.9018 17. 5.2013: Shri Bhoop Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an action proposed to be taken against the petitioner under Section 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act. In view of law laid down by a Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.2013(1) MPLJ 11 , as a remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is available to the petitioner, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of remedy available. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
R.G. Enterprises Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
R.G.Enterprises versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.9257 17. 5.2013: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the State. On the basis of tender submitted by the petitioner records do indicate that petitioners offer has been accepted and the matter is pending for finalization of the agreement between the parties. In the meanwhile, petitioner has sought for certain clarification with regard to certain conditions stipulated in pending representation vide Annexure P-3 and seek a direction by this court to the Collector to clarify the position indicated by petitioner in his representation before finalization of agreement in question based on the offer submitted. Finding aforesaid prayer made by petitioner to be reasonable, respondent No.2, the Collector concerned is directed to take note of representation of petitioner Annexure P-3, clarify the position to the petitioner and thereafter take a decision in the matter of ...
Saket Bansal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Writ Petition No.7470/2013 17.5.2013 Shri Girish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent no.3. The petitioner is a student of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur, which is affiliated to respondent no.2 Rani Durgawati Vishwavidhyalaya, Jabalpur. The petitioner aggrieved with the valuation of his answer-book of Physiology Paper II for the examination held in August, 2012 has filed the present petition for a direction against respondent no.2 to revalue the same. Pursuant to our direction, the answer-book of the aforesaid subject was produced before us. The answer-book was examined by the petitioner as well as the counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. After examining the answer book the unanimous view was that it has not been properly valued. We accordingly direct respondent No.2 to get the answer-book in question revalued by independent expert ...
Suyash Packaging Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
---1--- W.P.No.8566/2013 17.5.2013 Shri G.N.Purohit learned counsel with Shri Abhishek Oswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Dy. Government Advocate for respondents. It is submitted by Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and identical matter W.P.No.13173/2011 has been entertained by this Court and the controveRs.involved in this case is also identical, therefore, he prays for analogous hearing of both the cases. It is also submitted by him that interim protection be also be granted to the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Dy. Government Advocate opposed the aforesaid contention on the ground that an alternative remedy of filing the appeal is provided. But at present considering the fact that identical matter has been entertained and has been fixed for hearing, we entertain this petition and fixed this case for analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.13173/2011 on 8.7.2013. Office to list both these cases on the aforesaid date. In the mea...
Manish Raghuwanshi Vs. the Oriental Insurnce Company
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Writ Petition No ::9215. / 2013 Manish Raghuvanshi versus Oriental Ins. Co.Ltd and another 17.05.2013. Shri S. Pandey for the petitioner. Taking note of the fact that the documents available on record from D-11 to D-12 and the other material do show that petitioner has suffered an accident and is in requirement of some surgery, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal refusing to release the amount of `1,72,000/- lying in the account of the petitioner in a fixed deposit, on the ground that only four months are remaining for the fixed deposit to mature, is an arbitrary and perveRs.finding. When the petitioner has sought for withdrawal of the amount for undergoing surgery due to the accident, the requirement of the amount has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the aforesaid fact and merely because the fixed deposit is to mature after a period of four months, it is not good ground enough to refuse release of the amount to the petitioner, Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has al...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »