Skip to content

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.

May 08 2013

Vidhya Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2013

Writ Petition No ::585. / 2013 Vidya Devi and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 08.05.2013. Shri A.P.Pandey for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for State. Petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging certain order passed by Collector, Jabalpur in a revenue case with regard to their Bhumiswami rights. It is the case of the petitioners that the order has been passed without hearing them and, therefore, is not maintainable. Records indicate that challenging the same order passed by the Collector, petitioners had filed W.P.No.15782/2012 before this Court and vide order-dated 5.11.2012 Annexure P/4, a Bench of this Court adverted to consider the question and found that against the order impugned, petitioners have a remedy of appeal under section 44 and revision under section 50 and holding that a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the remedy available is not permissible, the petition was dismissed with liberty to...


May 08 2013

Laxman Singh Sengar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2013

Writ Petition No ::3705. / 2013 Laxman Singh Sengar versus State of MP and others 08.05.2013. Shri Vipin Yadav for the petitioner. Interalia contending that one Seema Pathak by forging certain documents has taken benefit of Ladli Laxmi Yojna and a complaint made by the petitioner for taking action against her under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC is not being looked into, petitioner has filed this writ petition. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the forgery committed by the said person and it is the contention of the petitioner that a criminal offence has been committed, even if the police authorities are not taking action, petitioner can file a private complaint before the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, finding no case for interference, the petition stands dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...


May 08 2013

Mrs. Meenaxi Dixit Vs. Shri Satya Prakash Dubey

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2013

W.P.13309/2012 8/5/2013 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Even though petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an order Annexure P/8 dated 22.11.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa, remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Collector, Rewa, during the couRs.of hearing, Shri Vipin Yadav pointed out that even after the remand made on 22.11.2004, the Collector having not finally decided the matter, for the present petitioner would only submit that a direction be issued to the Collector concerned for deciding the matter which is pending before him after the remand order passed by the Additional Commissioner as indicated herein above within a limited period. Finding the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner to be reasonable and justified, the prayer is allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with ...


May 08 2013

Shree Balaji Tractor Agency Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2013

Shree Balaji Tractor Agency versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.6941 8. 5.2013: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Objection filed by the petitioner, with regard to grant of trade certificate to respondent No.4 in accordance to requirement of Rule 43 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 framed under Motor Vehicles Act, is pending before respondent No.3 and it is seen that the same has not been decided till date, this writ petition has been filed. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present, without expressing any opinion on the merits of claim made by the petitioner or right of respondent No.4 to receive the trade certificate, it is directed that on petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents respondent No.3 shall decide the objection in accordance to law after hearing respondent No.4 or any other person concerned, as required under statutory rules, withi...


May 08 2013

Sahajlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2013

M.Cr.C.No.4207/2013 8/5/2013 Shri N.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. This is the 8th bail application of the applicant. Except for change of counsel for the fifth time, there is no other change in the circumstances warranting interference into the matter. Applicant is involved in a offence pertaining to certain offence which took place inside the jail premises and statement of witnesses goes to show that applicant was the main person who was involved in the same. Keeping in view the aforesaid, earlier bail applications have been rejected. I see no reason to interfere in the matter. Application is therefore, rejected. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...


May 08 2013

P.L. Nagarkar Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2013

Second Appeal No.188/2013 (P.L.Nagarkar versus Dinesh Kumar Jain) 08.05.2013 Heard Shri Adil Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 21.01.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.221-A/12 by the District Judge, Bhopal affirming the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in Case No.13/RCA/2010-11 dated 28.05.2012 rejecting the application for amendment filed by the appellant. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that subsequent to the filing of the reply, the appellant came into the possession of a document of the municipal corporation indicating that the house in question was recorded in the name of some person other than the respondent and therefore, he filed an application for amendment of his written statement and for bringing the said document on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of a decision rendered by the Supreme Co...


May 08 2013

Hivarkhed Shivram Siksha Samiti Vs. National Council for the Teachers ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2013

Writ Petition No.7383/2013 8.5.2013 Shri R.K.Tripathi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/ respondent nos.3 and 4. The petitioner is an educational society. It has established Multapi Mahavidyalaya at Plot No.572/6, 573/12 Betul Road, Tahsil Multai, District Betul. On 30.9.2011 it submitted an online application to the Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, seeking grant of recognition/permission for Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) couRs.for the academic session 2012-13. But the Western Regional Committee by order dated 4.6.2012 rejected the application on the ground that the Rajya Shiksha Kendra and School Education Department by their respective letters dated 27.1.2012 and 22.3.2012 have recommended not to grant recognition/permission for D.El.Ed. couRs.in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A Division Bench of this High Court vide order dated 17.7...


May 08 2013

Harprasad Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2013

Harprasad Ahirwar versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.5197 8. 5.2013: Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Considering the fact that an FIR bearing Crime No.94/2013 for offence under Sections 491, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC has been registered against respondent No.6 and investigation and enquiry into the matter is pending, as is evident from a copy of FIR produced by Shri Rajesh Tiwari, for the present, no further direction is required in the matter. Instead, respondent No.2 is directed to ensure that proper investigation and enquiry into the matter is conducted and proceedings held in accordance to law. With the aforesaid observations, for the present, finding no further indulgence to be called for, this petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...


May 08 2013

Vanshropan Singh Vs. Pyari Devi

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2013

Writ Petition No ::2985. / 2013 Vanshropan Singh versus Pyari Devi and others 08.05.2013. Shri Praveen Pandey for the petitioner. Against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Shahdol impugned in this writ petition, petitioner has a remedy of filing a revision before the Board of Revenue and learned counsel submits that he proposes to file a review before the Commissioner himself. Granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy as is indicated hereinabove, for the present, this petition is disposed of. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned back to learned counsel for the petitioner, on his filing a photocopy of the same. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...


May 08 2013

Chandranskekhar Patel Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: May-08-2013

Chandrashekhar Patel versus Central Bank of India Writ Petition No.4888 8. 5.2013: Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an action proposed to be taken against the petitioner under Section 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act. In view of law laid down by a Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.2013(1) MPLJ 11 , as a remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is available to the petitioner, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of remedy available. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial