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.
Rajendra Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Writ Petition No ::9030. / 2013 Rajendra Patel versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 17.05.2013. Shri Pushpendra Yadav for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is an employee of the respondent Cooperative establishment and after preliminary inquiry conducted by the impugned order, recommendation made is that a departmental inquiry be conducted and for the offences indicated a FiRs.Information Report be lodged. Interalia contending that in the preliminary inquiry petitioner has not been heard, this petition is filed. Only a preliminary inquiry has been held and departmental inquiry is to be initiated. In the departmental inquiry petitioner will get all the opportunity to defend himself. That apart, in the investigation to be done under the FIR also, petitioner will get all the opportunity to rebut the contentions. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dism...
Rajjak Khan Vs. Commissioner, Revenue Division Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Writ Petition No ::9076. / 2013 Rajjak 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, 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/-...
Balram Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Chunna Chamar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Balram Prasad Dwivedi versus Chunna Chamar & Anr. Writ Petition No.8911 17. 5.2013: Shri Vinot Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 22.4.2013 passed by IV Civil Judge, Class-II Satna by which application filed by petitioner for examining signature of petitioner on an intimation letter by a Hand writing expert, has been rejected. A perusal of order goes to show that suit is pending for more than 11 years and the petitioner was in knot of entire matter. Finding the application for examination by an expert to be filed belatedly only to delay the proceedings, particularly when the evidence is already over. Accordingly, the reasons, as are indicated in the order, cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference at this stage in a petition under article 227 of the Constitution is called for. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Raj...
Reserve Bank of India Vs. Shri Satya Sai Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
1 W.A.No.121/2013 Reserve Bank of India Shri Satya Sai Nagrik Sahkari Bank & another Maryadit & another 17.5.2013 Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, Counsel for appellants. Shri A.P.Shroti, Counsel for respondent No.1. It is submitted by Shri Dharmadhikari that Writ Petition No.12864/2011 was listed before the writ Court for hearing. It was not heard rather marked as part heard, but inspite of non- availability of the Hon'ble Judge, another Bench had adjourned hearing of the matter on the ground that it was a part heard matter. It is submitted that when the matter was not marked as part heard as per earlier order-sheet, as such the matter ought to have been heard by the regular Bench. Shri A.P.Shroti, learned counsel for respondent opposed the aforesaid contention. Whether matter is a part heard or is to be heard by a regular Bench can be examined in the administrative side by the High Court, and if the matter is placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for this purpose. Without making any comment...
G.K. Gakhar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
W.P.No.9304/2013 17.05.2013 Shri V.K.Shukla and Shri Mayank Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. The only grievance of the petitioner is that while setting aside the order of the premature retirement of the petitioner in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, he has been posted in District Hospital, Alirajpur. It is contended that the petitioner was working on the post of Deputy Director in the directorate of Public Health and Family Welfare, Bhopal, when the order of superannuation was issued in his respect retiring the petitioner prematurely at the age of 60 yeaRs.whereas the petitioner was entitled to continue in the employment upto the age of 65 yeaRs.These aspects were considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a writ petition filed by one Dr. Kanti Lal Sahu and another and since the said writ petition was allowed, ultimately the writ petition filed by the petitioner also stood allowed by the Division Bench. ...
Sunpetpack Jabalpur Pvt. Ltd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
---1--- W.P.No.8440/2013 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...
Rakesh Tiwari Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
1 Cr.A.No.1429/2005 Cr.A.No.1431/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR AFR Division Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Jain CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1429/2005 Rakesh Tiwari,son of Ramesh Tiwari, aged 29 years, Resident of House No.9/24, Police Line, Khandwa,District Khandwa (M.P.) ....Appellant -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station City Kotwali, Khandwa District Khandwa (M.P.) ....Respondent ---------------------------------------------------- For the appellant: Shri Prakash Upadhyay Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer. For the complainant:Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1431/2005 1. Ramesh Tiwari, son of Makhanlal Tiwari aged 54 years.2. Smt. Kusumlata Tiwari, wife of Ramesh Tiwari,aged 50 years.3. Ku. Snehlata Tiwari, daughter of Ramesh Tiwari, aged 25 years. All residents of House No.9/24, Police Line, Khandwa (M.P.) ....Appellants -Versus-...
Devi Prashad Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-2013
Writ Petition No ::9197. / 2013 Devi Prasad Ahirwar and another versus State of MP and others 17.05.2013. Shri L.C.Chourasiya for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Considering the fact that for the purpose of payment of compensation to the petitioners under the Workmen Compensation Act, the competent authority has already issued a Revenue Recovery Certificate Annexure P/3 to the tune of `3,38,082/- - respondent No.1 Collector, District Sagar is directed to effect recovery of the amount in accordance to the RRC Annexure P/3 and ensure that the amount is recovered in accordance to law within a period of three 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/-...
Abdul Karim Vs. Salim Musalman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2013
M.C.C.No.556 / 2013 (Abdul Karim ....v.....Salim Musalman & otheRs.16-05-2013 Heard Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the applicant on the application for restoration of S.A.No.46/2013. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he had gone to Umaria, his home town, on 19-1-2013 and returned to Jabalpur in the morning of 21-1-2013 and while coming to the Court he got late and therefore as he could not appear before the Court when the appeal was called for hearing on 21-1-2013 he could not remove the default as per the Court's order dated 21-1-2013 which resulted in dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance of Court's order. He submits that the deficit court fees has been paid thereafter on 30-1-2013. The application is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. It is directed that Second Appeal No.46/2013 be restored to its origi...
Mahesh Kumar Asati Vs. Ganesh Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2013
M.C.C.No.660/2013 16-05-2013 Heard Shri Avinash Jargar, learned counsel for applicants on I.A.No.5574/13 for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant. The application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Also heard on the application for restoration of C.R.No.155/2006. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that due to some reasons he could not comply with the peremptory order passed by this court which resulted in dismissal of the aforesaid Civil Revision for non- compliance of the peremptory order. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.09.2012 passed in C.R.No.155/2006 is recalled and the same is directed to be restored to its original number. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of C.R.No.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »