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.
S.S. Rasik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
W.P.No.8056/2013 10/05/2013 Smt. Tulika Gulatee, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. This petition is admitted for final hearing. Issue notices to the respondents. Steps within one week by RAD. Ad-interim writ Till next date of hearing, it is directed that the respondents shall not sell any property belonging to the Cooperative Housing Society namely respondent No.6 without seeking prior permission of this Court and the Registrar is also directed not to register any sale-deed, if executed jointly by the respondent Nos.6 & 7. Be listed for further hearing on ad-interim writ in the 2nd week of July, 2013. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge SJ/-...
Sister Magdaline Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Sister Magdaline versus Shri Sanjay Singh & Another Conc Case No :915. 10. 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 Comm...
Ramabhilash Dwivedi Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :909. / 2013 Ramabhilash Dwivedi and others versus Shri Sanjay Singh and another 10.05.2013. Shri S.R.Tamrakar, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.S.Bisen, GA, for the non-applicants. The applicants herein are working as teacher and their grievance 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 applicants was also allowed and the respondents were directed to pay benefits of 5th Pay Commission recommendation to the applicants. not the grievance of the applicants 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 applicants by virtue of the acceptance of the ...
Guhra Singh Paraste Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Conc Case No :920. / 2013 Guhra Singh Paraste 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...
Smt. Rama Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Writ Petition No ::7906. / 2012 Smt. Rama Singh and others versus State of M.P.and another 10.05.2013. Shri Grisham Jain for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for the State. Considering the fact that the revision filed by the petitioners is pending before the Board of Revenue and this petition was filed in the year 2012, at which point of time the Board of Revenue was not available, for the present, as the Board of Revenue has started functioning, it is directed that the Board of Revenue shall either decide the revision petition pending before it within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties or atleast pass an order on the interim application filed by the petitioners within one month from the date of filing of copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Virendra Kumar Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
2 Writ Petition No. 8721 Of 2013 10.5.2013 Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Petitioner claiming himself to be lessee of land admeasuring 30'x30' = 900 square feet of Khasra No. 72, Patwari Halka No. 42/1 and complaining that a hutment raised, thereover, has been unauthorizedly razed by respondent No. 6 to 9 seeks direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to register offence against respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and a direction to respondent Nos. 6 to 9 to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/. In respect of the claim regarding registration of offence, the petitioner since has the remedy under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is at liberty to seek the same. [See Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171, Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409, Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala (2008) 3 SCC 542 and Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim ...
Smt. Rama Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
2 Writ Petition No. 8131 Of 2013 10.5.2013 Shri Mukesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Challenge in this petition is to an order dated 12.4.2013; whereby, the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Upper Division Teacher is Social Science, group has been turned down. Initially appointed as Lower Division Teacher on 25.9.1978, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Upper Division Teacher which is in accordance with subjects. On the option being sought petitioner opted for promotion as Upper Division Teacher (Hindi). whereas, respondent No. 4 opted for Social Science Group. In pursuance whereof promotion cum posting orders were passed on 20.12.2012 whereby the petitioner was promoted and posted as Upper Division Teacher (Hindi) at Government High School Ama Hinota; whereas respondent No. 4 was ...
Sister Nirmala S. Vs. Shri Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Sister Nirmala S. versus Shri Sanjay Singh & Another Conc Case No :912. 10. 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...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
Writ Petition No.2214/2005 10.5.2013 Status report as on 9.5.2013 has been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, wherein it is stated that due to unavoidable circumstances four unauthorized religious structures, which were marked for demolition, could not be removed. The report also states that the district administration and the Corporation are working out a fresh schedule for demolition of the structures. The status report is directed to be taken on record. Similar status report has also been filed on behalf of the State Government. It is stated in the report that two religious structures, which have been reconstructed after demolition, will be removed in near future. As regards huge monument of Hanumanji, which has been constructed on a Government land, the report states that the proposal for exchange of Government land with Shri S.P.Koshta has been sent by the Collector to the State Government on 7.5.2013. The status report is directed to be taken on record. Shri Sudhir Shr...
Lakshman Das Sindhi Vs. Ratan Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2013
M.C.C.No.543 / 2013 (Lakshman Das Sindhi..v...Ratan Patel & otheRs.10-05-2013 Shri S.K.Choubey learned counsel for applicant. Heard on the application for restoration of Civil Revision No.121/2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he could not appear before this Court when the aforesaid revision was called for hearing on 9-4-2013, however, he was present in the Court before calling of the case, as a result of which the revision was ordered to be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is further submitted that the mistake was bona fide and unintentional and the same being a sufficient and justified cause, the civil revision be restored to its original number. The application is supported by an affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. Civil Revision No.121/2008 be restored to its original number. A copy of this order be placed in the record of Civil Re...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »