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.
Kamlesh Prasad Tiwari Vs. Shri A.K. Varwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Conc. No.456/2012 13/5/2013: Shri V.C.Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the order passed vide Annexure R/1 passed on 7/5/2012 directing for joining of the petitioner and joining report submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure R/2, regarding his joining in Government Higher Secondary and Middle School, Lalgaon, Rewa, not no further action is required to be taken in the matter. In case petitioner has any grievance for payment of salary for the intervening period, he may represent to the respondents and it would be for the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, for the present finding no case for initiating action for contempt, respondents are discharged from the proceeding and the application disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Harishankar Patel Vs. Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Conc. No.459/2012 13/5/2013: Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal and Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the order passed by the respondents as contained in Annexure R/1 dated 11.4.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on various grounds, for the present it is not appropriate for this Court to proceed further in the matter. Instead liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order afresh in accordance to law. Accordingly, for the present finding no case for initiating action for contempt, respondents are discharged from the proceeding and the application disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Ku. Chandrika Daas Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Ku. Chandrika Daas versus Shri Sanjay Singh & Another Conc Case No :966. 13. 05.2013. Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S.Bisen, GA for the respondents. The applicant herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the applicant is that the benefits of 5th pay commissions recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000 (V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra) the petition of the applicant was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the applicant. not the grievance of the applicant is that the said benefit is not being granted even though order was passed in the year 2004/2005 Inter alia contending that the benefits accruing to the applicant by virtue of the acceptance of the 5th Pay Co...
Aman Channy Vs. Devraj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Aman Channy & Anr. versus Devraj & ORS.Writ Petition No :11193. 13. 05.2013. Shri R.N.Nanhorya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Taking note of the fact that an earlier suit between the same parties with regard to same property is pending consideration in the form of second appeal before this Court being S.A.No.344/2009, which is continuation of the earlier suit and based on the same when all the parties agree that the requirement of Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure is attracted in the present case, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. It is an admitted position that the dispute is pending in both the forum the property is the same, the parties are also same and, therefore, the provisions of Section 10 are applicable in the said case. Taking note of the same if the learned trial court had to stay proceedings in the subsequent suit, no error has been committed by the court below. Accordingly, finding no case for...
Smt. Mangla Yadav Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Smt. Mangla Yadav versus Shri Sanjay Singh & Another Conc Case No :902. 13. 05.2013. Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S.Bisen, GA for the respondents. The applicant herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the applicant is that the benefits of 5th pay commissions recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000 (V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra) the petition of the applicant was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the applicant. not the grievance of the applicant is that the said benefit is not being granted even though order was passed in the year 2004/2005 Inter alia contending that the benefits accruing to the applicant by virtue of the acceptance of the 5th Pay Com...
Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Grih Nirman Sahakari Samity Ltd. Vs. Shri Leel ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Grih Nirman Sahakari Samity LTD.versus Union of India & ORS.Writ Petition No :97. 13. 05.2013. Shri L.M.Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri R.K.Nanhorya, learned counsel for respondents. Challenging an interlocutory order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the learned trial court dismissing an application for amendment filed by petitioner/plaintiff, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction in the year 2012. The suit is pending for more than 11 yeaRs.evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff have been closed and after a period of 9 years an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed and it was pointed out in the amendment application that certain events have taken place during pendency of suit and, therefore, amendment be allowed. The amendment application have been rejected by the court below on two counts. The fiRs.ground is that, the suit is pending for more th...
Lal Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Writ Petition No ::8090. / 2013 Lal Bai versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 13.05.2013. Shri Sidharth Gupta for the petitioner. Petitioner is a Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat and by the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 27.2.2013, exercising powers under section 40 of the MP Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam).petitioner has been removed from the office. Under the Adhiniyam itself, petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal against the aforesaid order and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the order has been passed without conducting proper inquiry, without granting opportunity to the petitioner and the same officer, who conducted the preliminary inquiry has passed the final order, therefore, a petition directly before this Court can be entertained. Having gone through th...
Dr. Govind M. Avatramani Vs. Shri B.P. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Conc. No.3/2012 13/5/2013: Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Siddhart Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Considering the fact that the order in question has already been passed on 8.11.2010 in W.P.No.1985/2008 and from the return filed by the respondents on 19.10.2012 it is seen that they have made a statement that the petitioner has not deposited the amount as ordered in the original writ petition, for the present without initiating any action for contempt, it is directed that in case petitioner has already deposited the amount during the pendency of the application or petitioner is depositing the same not within a reasonable time, respondents shall settle the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months thereof. With the aforesaid, respondents are discharged from the proceeding and the application is disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Radha Dubey Vs. Shri Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Radha Dubey versus Shri Manot Jhalani & Another Conc Case No :728. 13. 05.2013. Shri Vishal Dhagat, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S.Bisen, GA for the respondents. The applicant herein is working as teacher and the grievance of the applicant is that the benefits of 5th pay commissions recommendation as directed by this court is not being paid. The question has been decided in various cases and in W.P.No.2029/2000 (V.V.Asthana and others versus State of M.P.and others directions have been issued for granting the benefits and based on the order passed in the case of V.V.Asthana (supra) the petition of the applicant was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the applicant. not the grievance of the applicant is that the said benefit is not being granted even though order was passed in the year 2004/2005 Inter alia contending that the benefits accruing to the applicant by virtue of the acceptance of the 5th Pay Commission re...
Abdul Rauf Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
1 MCC No.481 o13. 5.2013 Shri Syed Jaheeruddin, Advocate,for the applicants. Heard. This application is filed for restoration of the FA No.384/2012 which was dismissed because of noncompliance of the peremptory order dated 5.9.2012. The application is barred by limitation so applicants have filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of this MCC. The office has shown delay of 170days in filing the present MCC. The FiRs.Appeal No.384/12 was dismissed because of noncompliance of the peremptory order by which the appellants were directed to make payment of process fee by ordinary as well by registered AD mode for service on the respondents No.13 to 37within a period of ten days. Failing which the appeal itself was directed to be dismissed without further reference to the Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that it was the fault of the counsel for the applicants who could not pay the process fee within the period pres...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »