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.
M/S Jco Gas Pipe Ltd Vs. Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
WP No.8859 o10. 5.2013. Shri Gaurav Shrivastava for the petitioneRs.Shri Shreyus Dharmadhikari for the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that looking to the financial condition of the petitioneRs.they have submitted a reschedulment of repayment of loan plan to the respondent No.1 in October, 2012, which has not been considered by the respondent No.1. It is submitted that the entire loan is a secured loan,but, because of the aforesaid non-consideration, symbolic possession of the factory premises of the petitioners have been taken over by the respondent No.1. It is submitted that in case the aforesaid application is considered and reschedulement of repayment is made by the respondent No.1 even from the next month, the petitioners herein are ready to make repayment of the loan. It is also submitted before us that the petitioners are running an industry which is industry in production and if actual possession is taken by the respondent No.1, the entire productio...
Dharamdas Burman Vs. Gulshan Bamara
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Dharamdas Burman versus Shri Gulshan Bamara Conc. No :1461. 10. 05.2013. Shri J.L.Soni, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, GA for the respondent. From the return filed by respondent and order passed Annexure R-1 dated 22.12.2012 it is seen that the claim of petitioner has been rejected. In view of above, for the present, no case is made out for initiating any action for contempt. In case petitioner has any grievance in the matter, he may initiate fresh proceedings in accordance to law. With the aforesaid, respondent is discharged from the proceedings and contempt application is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Ansar Ahmed Khan Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Ansar Ahmed Khan versus Shri Sanjay Singh & Another Conc Case No :911. 10. 05.2013. Shri Sanjay 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 Commiss...
ignasiyus SurIn Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :918. / 2013 Ignasiyus Surin versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri Sanjay 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...
Smt. Munnu Raja Bundela Vs. Rajkumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
1 M.C.C No.775/2012 Smt. Munnu Raja Bundela & Ors versus Rajkumar Bundela & ORS.10.05.2013 Shri J.L.Soni learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Dinesh Agrawal learned counsel for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission as well as I.A No.7573/2012 for condonation of delay of 6 years 126 days in filing this application for restoration of S.A No.1045/1997 which was dismissed in default on 30.1.2006. From a perusal of the order passed by this Court on 30.1.2006 it appears that the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance of the applicants in view of the fact that the matter was called up on several occasions and that it was stated by the respondents that they had already obtained possession of the property in execution of the impugned decree. This application for restoration has been filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay stating that the applicants did not come to knot about the dismissal of the appeal till 20.6.2012 when t...
Smt. Kanchan Shrivastava Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :890. / 2013 Smt. Kanchan Shrivastava versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri Sanjay 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 th...
Hari Om Chouksey Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :921. / 2013 Hari Om Chouksey versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri S.R.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 C...
Ku. Radhika Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
W.P.No.8709/2013 10/5/2013 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikas Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Considering the fact that an application filed by the petitioner for allotment of government house / quarter is pending consideration before respondents No.2 and 3, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to take note of the grievance of the petitioner and the application submitted and evaluating it in the light of policy and circular applicable in the matter of allotment and decide it within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the application is not decided, status quo with regard to possession of the petitioner in the quarter in question shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Jagdish Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Jagdish Yadav versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :6336. 10. 05.2013. Shri R.K.Choubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, GA for the respondents. Complaining that while discharging the duties of Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat in question, respondent Nos.4 & 5 have committed various irregularities and complaint filed by the petitioner in the matter is not being looked into, this writ petition has been filed. Taking note of the grievance of petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the same, respondent No.2, the Collector, is directed to look into the complaint of petitioner and proceed in the matter in accordance to law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Vishwa Chetna Commune Audyogik Prashikshan Kendra Vs. Smt. Kiran Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Civil Revision No.196/2013 10-05-2013 Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12-3-2013 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur, in C.S.No.27A/2011 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C.has been dismissed. From a perusal of the order it is apparent that the Court below has clearly stated that the suit has been filed for eviction in which arrears of rent have been claimed and in such circumstances the suit filed by the respondents cannot be dismissed only on account of the fact that it is mentioned that Rs.50,000/- as security deposit were deposited. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court, therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner being misconceived...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »