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.
Naved Ahmad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Naved Ahmad versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No :5501. 13. 05.2013. Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Challenging order Annexure P-1 & P-2 passed by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner in the matter of externment of petitioner from the District in question under the M.P.Rajya Surakhsha Adhiniyam, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is seen that on the basis of report submitted by the Superintendent of Police Bhopal a show-cause notice dated 29.9.2012 was issued to the petitioner indicating involvement of petitioner in 9 criminal cases, based on the aforesaid the impugned action is taken. A perusal of record shows that out of the 9 cases, as are indicated in show-cause notice, cases from Sr.No.1 to 7 are for a period of more than 6 years prior to initiation of the action in the year 2012. Cases at Sr.No.1 t...
Khalil Ahmad Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
R.P.No.366/2013 13/5/2013: Shri Umakant Sharma, learned senior counsel with Shri Suyash Tripathi, for the applicant. Having heard Shri Umakant Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the applicant, the order passed on 3.4.2013 is clarified to the extent that on the basis of certified copy of the documents already filed by the applicant, if applicant wants to examine any revenue officer for proving the documents, he is granted liberty to file appropriate application seeking summoning of the officer concerned for summoning the record and for proving the documents. With the aforesaid clarification, this application stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Amit Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Amit Mishra versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No :4871. 13. 05.2013. Shri Mahesh Acharya, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Challenging the externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the M.P.Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam vide order Annexure P-3 dated 7.12.2012 and the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of petitioner vide Annexure P-4 dated 12.2.2013, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is seen that in the show-cause notice was issued to petitioner by the Superintendent of Police vide Annexure P-1 dated 19.9.2011, 10 criminal cases involving the petitioner were indicated. Out of the 10 cases, indicated in the show-cause notice, cases from Sr.No.1 to 9 pertains to period more than 1 years prior to the date of initiation of proceedings, the cases were of the year 2007 and 2008 and the case no....
General Manager ( R and R) Vs. Mangilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
1 F.A.No.204 o13. 5.2013 Shri Arpan J. Pawar, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on IA No.4242/13 an application u/s 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Alongwith this application the appellant has filed deficit court fee of Rs.2,57,358/-and prayed for extension of time in payment of the court fee. Considering the averments made in the application, time for payment of the court fee is extended till 4.4.2013. The aforesaid IA is allowed. Heard on admission. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents steps within a period of one week by RAD. Also heard on I.A.No.3314/13, which is an application for stay. Issue notice to the other side. Till next date of hearing following directions are issued:1. Appellant to deposit 50% of of the total award before the reference Court within a period of thirty days from today.2. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the amount by furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.3. On depositing of th...
Council for Research in Yoga and Naturaopathy and Technical Education ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Council for Research in Yoga & Naturopathy and Technical Education Bhopal & Another versus Smt. Madhulika Shrivastava & Another Writ Petition No :8781. 13. 05.2013. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Deepak Raghuwanshi, counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the orders dated 16.8.2011 and 23.1.2013 passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Execution Case No.09/2008, rejecting objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and an application under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is seen that the dispute was referred for arbitration. The arbitrator passed an award and not the award is put to execution in Execution Case No.9/08. In the said execution proceedings petitioners raised the objection under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and, therefore, these objections were registered as MJ.NO.647/2011. The objection was listed for hearing on 16.8.2011 when neither the counsel for the objectORS.namely the present petitioneRs.appeared not both...
Rohit Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Mydt. Vs. Smt. Sheela Raghuvanshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
C.R.No.487/2010 (Rohit Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit versus Smt. Sheela Raghuvanshi and otheRs.13.05.2013 Heard Shri A.P.Shroti, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondents. The applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 08.09.2010 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.484-A/08 whereby the application filed by the applicant under section 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C.has been dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent No.1 had filed a suit against the respondent/applicant which is a cooperative society. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of section 94 of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act the respondent No.1 was statutorily required to serve and deliver notice to the Registrar giving details of the cause of action and the relief which he seeks to claim and that they should have made a specific statement in this regard in the plaint...
Savitri Mahila Sawwahayata Samooh Attarar Vs. the State of Madhya Prad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Writ Petition No ::8127. / 2013 Savitri Mahila Sawwahayata Samooh versus State of MP and others 13.05.2013. Shri Rajesh Dubey for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Considering the fact that against the impugned interlocutory order-dated 9.4.2013, passed by the revisional authority granting ex-parte stay, a petition directly before this Court challenging the order without approaching the said authority where the revision is pending for vacating the stay is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority where the matter is pending and seek vacation of the stay, this petition is disposed of. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
M/S Gvpr Engineers Limited Vs. Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
---1--- W.P.No.6816/2013 13.5.2013 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vikas Mishra, learned counsel and Shri S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for respondents. It is submitted by Shri Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate that in this case show cause notice for determination of the contract was under challenged, but the petitioner had approached to the respondents for grant of some time to complete the work. The respondents have extended the period, but with certain conditions. It is submitted by him that as the period has already been extended, the show cause notice has lost its efficacy and the petitioner has been permitted to continue with the work, however with certain conditions. It is further submitted by Shri Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to challenge the conditions imposed for liquidated damages at an appropriate sta...
Kallu Singh Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
Conc. No.89/2011 13/5/2013: Ms.Hemlata Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manas Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the orders passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner as contained in Annexure R/2 dated 25.2.2012, petitioner is not required to challenge this order separately in a fresh proceeding. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the said procedure may take a long time but in a contempt proceeding, this Court cannot go into the merits of the reasons given in Annexure R/2 and issue any further direction. This can be done only in a proceeding under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and not in a contempt proceeding. Petitioner may seek early disposal of the writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order afresh in accordance to law in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the present, without...
B.P. Vishwakarma Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2013
B.P.Vishwakarma versus Shri Sanjay Singh & Another Conc Case No :963. 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 Commi...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »