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.
Sanat Kumar Sondhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
W.P.No.4137/2013 08/05/2013 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Imtiyaz Husain, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A.No.6561/2013, an application filed for vacating stay order granted on 15.3.2013. Election to the trust in question has been held and certain matters are pending before the Registrar on a proceeding initiated by the petitioner under Section 26 of the Act. Grievance of the petitioner is that arguments on the application for stay was heard by the Registrar but as no orders were passed, this writ petition has been filed. On going through the provision of Section 26 of the M.P.Public Trusts Act, 1951, it is seen that prima-facie, the statutory provision does not indicate that the Registrar has any right to stay the election. That apart, the elections have already been held and taking note of the statutory provisions, it is not appropriate not to stay the declaration of the result or working of the elected b...
Smt. Sultana Bi Vs. Smt. Khatun Bi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
C.R.No.194/2013 (Smt. Sultana Bi and others versus Smt. Khatun Bi and otheRs.08.05.2013 Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicants. Heard. The applicants have filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 12.03.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.4-A/2013 by Sixth Civil Judge, Class-II, Damoh whereby the application filed by the applicants/defendants under order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C.has been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that as per the averments made by the respondents in the plaint itself, it is evident that the suit has been filed by the respondents for possession in respect of 750 sq. ft. of land for which they have paid court fees of Rs.6000/- only whereas as per the guidelines of the State Government issued for the year 2012-13 the respondents were required to pay the court fees of Rs.62,732/- but they have not done so. It is submitted that the applicants had filed an application under order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C.taking up the...
Paramjeet Singh Bedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
Paramjeet Singh Bedi versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.7911 8. 5.2013: Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Certain property was put to auction by the Jila Sahakari Krishi & Gramin Vikas Bank, Maryadit in accordance to the provisions of M.P.Sahakari Krishi and Gramin Vikas Bank Act, 1999. The petitioner participated in the auction proceedings and the offer of petitioner was accepted. The sale was confirmed in favour of petitioner and sale certificate was also issued vide registered deed in favour of petitioner on 15.7.2002. Documents evidencing the sale are Annexure P-1. Thereafter vide Annexure P-2 petitioner has sought for possession of property purchased by him, but as nothing has been done and matter is kept pending, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance of petitioner, respondent No.2, the Collector is directed to look into the matter and decide the...
Ganesh Prasad BarThe Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 14104 Of 2010 8.5.2013 Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. With consent heard finally. Being aggrieved of recording of date of birth as 29.6.1953 in the service record, the petitioner gave the representation for its correction on 29.6.1955. The representation was turned down by order dated 24.6.2010. It is this order which is being challenged vide this petition. Petitioner entered into service on 28.2.1974. When he was recruited in 25th Battalion Special Armed Force, 29.6.1953 was recorded as date of birth in his service book. That, in the year 2004 petitioner raised the dispute as to wrong recording of his date of birth in the service record. Whereon, by letter dated 11.2.2004, the petitioner was called upon to furnish the original marksheet of Cass V, VIII and the original transfer certificate of Class VIII, to as...
K.K. Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
Writ Petition No ::3447. / 2013 K.K.Shukla versus State of MP and others 08.05.2013. Shri R.P.Mishra for the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition pertains to certain dispute between him and a private person in the matter of certain property and it is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of the complaint being made and FIR being lodged, no action is taken. In view of the above, in case petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the complaint made by him, he should file a private complaint before a Court of competent criminal jurisdiction where the Magistrate concerned is empowered under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to proceed in the matter. Accordingly, finding existence of a remedy available to the petitioner under the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am not inclined to interfere into the matter. Petitioner may take recouRs.to the remedy available, as indicated hereinabove. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified ...
Dwarka Prasad Jat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.571/2012 Dwarka Prasad Jat Vs. State of M.P and others ................................................................................................. Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Nishant Datt, counsel for the applicant. Shri P. K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondent no.1. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 8th day of May, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore in Criminal revision No.156/2011 whereby the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Nasrullaganj in Criminal Case No.520/2011 by which a complaint against the respondents no.2 to 5 was registered for offence punishable under Sections 2 of the Pre...
Dr.Jeetendra Gupta Vs. Barkahtullah Vishwavidyalaya Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Writ Petition No.15990/2012 Dr. Jeetendra Gupta....Petitioner Versus Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal.Respondent For the petitioner: Shri Anurag Dubey, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Mahendra Pateriya, Advocate. Present : HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE T. K. KAUSHAL . ORDER (8.5.2013) The following order of the Court was delivered by : Ajit Singh, J.By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of notification dated 22.2.2012, Annexure P7, issued by respondent Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal.2. The petitioner was registered with the respondent on 14.1.2008 as candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law. Thereafter the Executive Council of the respondent in its meeting held on 27.1.2010 also accepted his name for the award of that degree. The notification dated 29.1.2010 published by the respondent in this regard is Annexure P5.3. The University Grants Commission (in short, the UGC.) i...
Ram Prasad Sharma Thr. Lrs Laxmi Bai Vs. Pragati Grih Nirman Sahkari S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
MCC No.508/2013 (R.P.Sharma versus Pragati Grih Nirman and another) 08.05.2013 Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.4254/13 for condonation of delay. This application for restoration of review petition No.702/10 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.09.2011 has been filed by the applicant after more than one year and 168 days of dismissal of the review petition. It is also observed that the review petition No.702/10 was filed by the applicant seeking recall and review of the order dated 09.11.2006 passed in C.R.No.176/06 after a long lapse of about four yeaRs.From a perusal of the order dated 16.09.2011 passed in Review Petition No.702/10 it is also clear that nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant on three occasions and it was in such circumstances, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Before this court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the delay in filing the application for restoration ...
Arun Kumar Bajpai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
W.P.No.13005/2012 08/05/2013 Shri R.S.Jaiswal, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Manot Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned P.L.for Respondents/State. Learned Sr.Advocate for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to avail remedy available to him under Section 57 (2) of the M.P.Minot Mineral Rules, 1996. Prayer allowed. The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. In case, an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority instead of throwing it over board on the ground of limitation shall decide the same on its own merits within a period of three months. Interim order dated 23.8.2012 shall continue till the matter is finally decided by the Director, Mining and would be subject to final out come of this petition. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Sheetala Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-2013
W.P.No.8172/2013 8/5/2013 Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent State. Dispute in question is infact a dispute pertaining to the property in question. Petitioner has made a very innocuous prayer in the petition and it is stated that a Cheque of Rs.12,00895/- granted towards compensation for the aforesaid land in the name of respondents No.3 to 6 be directed not to be encashed. Reason for making the aforesaid prayer was that a Civil Suit with regard to title of the property between the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 is pending before the Civil Court and further challenging right of respondents to seek compensation for acquisition of land, petitioner says that they are not entitled to any compensation as their ownership of the land itself is not available, therefore, payment of the cheque be stopped. If there is any dispute with regard to ownership, title and possession of the land between the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »