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.
State Bank of India Vs. K.B. Joshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2013
W.A.No.377/2013 09.05.2013 Shri Rohit Arya, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vikram Johri, for the appellants. Shri Siddharth Patel, Advocate for the respondent. Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri Siddharth Patel. He prays for a short time to seek instructions in the matter. Prayer is allowed. I.A.No.5703/2013 for stay. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent prays for a short time to file reply of this application. Be listed for hearing on 28.06.2013. Till next date of hearing, operation of the order passed by the Single Judge, in so far as it relates to the directions issued in para 21 of the impugned order, shall remain stayed, however, it will not affect the status of the respondent, as he is enjoying, as on date. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge psm...
i.D. Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 8685 Of 2013 9.5.2013 Shri Maninder Singh Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Order dated 30.4.2013 is being assailed vide this petition. Vide said order Commissioner, Tribal Welfare has called upon Collector, District Mandla to lodge an FIR against the petitioner in furtherance to the enquiry report by Lokayukta in enquiry case No. 241/2012 which in turn was on the basis of the complaint against the petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare. That, vide impugned order in respect of fact finding as complaint No. 1, 5, 6, 9 and 11 which related to financial irregularities committed by the petitioner while posted as Assistant Commissioner, Mandla, direction has been issued to initiate a department enquiry. Whereas, in respect of finding as to complaint No. 2 that the petitioner is found having received Rs.40,000/ through cheq...
Smt. Asha Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2013
1.... W.A. No.408 of 2013 Smt. Asha Tripathi State of M.P.& ors. 09.05.2013 Shri A.P. Singh, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Kumresh Pathak, Dy. A.G. for the respondents.1) This appeal is directed against an order dated 22.4.2013 passed by the writ Court in W.P. 6370 of 2013 by which a writ petition challenging the transfer order dated 28.9.2012, transferring the appellant from Rewa to Majhgawan, was dismissed.2) The factual position of the case is as under :- a) That the appellant was working as the Principal in Govt. Higher Secondary School, Gurh District Rewa. She was transferred by an order dated 15.7.2012 to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Baron district Rewa. b) Against order dated 15.7.2012 a writ petition was filed before this Court registered as W.P.12504/12 which was finally disposed of on 9.8.2012 by an order which reads thus :- Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. With the consent of learned couns...
Rouvanu Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1695/2011 9.5.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, PL for the State. The appellant is produced before this Court from sub-jail Mandla. Surety Veer Shah is also present in person along with his counsel. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2)of the Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by conviction and sentence recorded by Sessions Judge, Mandla vide order dated 9.6.2011 passed in S.T.No.25/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I.for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not want to press the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court. However, the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 6 months as under trial and after conviction, he remained in jail for about 2 months. In all the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 9 months. The ends of justice would be met, if ...
The Managing Director M.P.Warehousing and Logistics Vs. M/S Agronomy S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
M.C.C.No.1387/2012 08/05/2013 Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the Uco Bank, Piplani, Bhopal, as an Intervener. An order was passed by this Court on 5.12.2012 issuing certain directions and the Collector was directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 4(1)(a) of the M.P.Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948 and take steps for referring the matter for arbitration as contemplated in the aforesaid provision. Office has not brought to the notice of this court that the Collector tried to negotiate and arrive at an agreement but the same having been failed and the matter has been referred to the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator as per the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. It is stated that the State Government after reference from the Collector has referred the matter to the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, it is cont...
Khuda Bux Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
Khuda Bux versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.19334 8. 5.2013: Shri B.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. As the claim of petitioner in a proceeding under the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargo Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharko Ko Udhar Dene Walo Ko Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakro Ke Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam 1976 is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Jabalpur, respondent No.7, the said respondent is directed to decide the matter in accordance to remand made by the Additional Commissioner on 26.05.2001 within a period of three months after hearing all concerned. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Karanveer Vs. Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :8538. of 2013 Karanveer and others - V/s - State of MP & Collector, District, Narsinghpur. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P.N.Das, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 08/05/2013 Petitioners claim to be in possession of certain agricultural land, which was given to their ancestors much prior to coming into force of the M P Land Revenue Code, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Code).It is stated that in the settlement process that was conducted sometime in the year 1923-1924, the then Zamindars / Malgujars of the land gave the land to the ancestors of the petitioneRs.as they were working as Kotwars and since then the petitioners are in possessio...
Sunny Kachwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
W.P.No.8875/2011 08/05/2013 Shri Sunil Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order Annexure-P17 dated 9.5.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Katni in the matter of issuing caste certificate to the petitioner and recommending for reference of the matter to the high power committee for seeking his guidelines. It is the case of the petitioner that power to make reference is not available to the Sub-Divisional Officer and, therefore, he prays for quashment of the same. Reply has been filed by the respondents and in Para-4 & 5 of the reply, the State Government has come out with a case that if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to rejection of his claim by the Sub-Divisional Officer Katni, the petitioner should have approached the Collector, where all these facts shoulc be considered. Thereafter, it is indicated that if the petitioner files an application for review of the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the S...
Tarun Kuamr Mandal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
Writ Petition No ::5417. / 2013 Tarun Kumar Mandal versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 08.05.2013. Shri R. Kumar for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for State. Shri Sanjeev Mishra for respondent No.5. Challenging the interim-order dated 11.2.2013 Annexure P/1 passed by Director, Geology and Mining in an appeal, which is pending at the instance of respondent No.5, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Various grounds are raised in the writ petition to say that the interim stay granted by the appellate authority in favour of respondent No.5 is unsustainable and, therefore, prayer made is to interfere into the matter. Respondents have filed reply and have raised various objections, which include an objection with regard to maintainability of the petition on two grounds. The fiRs.ground is that against the order passed by the Director, a remedy of further appeal before the State Government is available. That apart, it is pointed out that if the petitione...
Annilal Mehra Vs. Collector of Distcit Narsinghpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :8537. of 2013 Annilal Mehra and others - V/s - State of MP & Collector, District, Narsinghpur. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P.N.Das, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 08/05/2013 Petitioners claim to be in possession of certain agricultural land, which was given to their ancestors much prior to coming into force of the M P Land Revenue Code, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Code).It is stated that in the settlement process that was conducted sometime in the year 1923-1924, the then Zamindars / Malgujars of the land gave the land to the ancestors of the petitioneRs.as they were working as Kotwars and since then the petitioners are in posse...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »