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.
Aayojita Munna Lal Vs. Noel Ashish Munnalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1940/2012 7.5.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Nishant Datt for the applicant. None for respondent No.1. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, PL for respondent No.2/State. This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 by this Court vide order dated 19.1.2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.445/2012. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court had granted the bail to respondent No.1 on the ground that there was a possibility of amicable settlement between the parties, however, respondent No.1 is not ready for amicable settlement with the applicant and he is trying to run away from the city and there is possibility of respondent No.1 being absconded from the trial, therefore, the bail granted to respondent No.1 be cancelled. None has appeared for respondent No.1, however, a reply has been filed by respondent No.1 submitting that respondent No.1 is regularly appearing before the trial...
Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya Vs. Rajneesh Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
R.P.No.187/2013 8/5/2013 Shri P.K.Kourav, learned Additional Advocate General for the applicant. This review application has been filed pointing out certain administrative difficulties in the matter of regularizing the employees and the prayer made is that time fixed for complying with the directions issued in the original writ petition be extended. For the purpose of regularizing employees who are working as daily wages employees various directions were issued by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions on 18.1.2011. It is not reported that in pursuance to the aforesaid directions issued an appropriate Scrutiny Committee has scrutinize the cases and certain recommendations have been made for regularization of employees or otherwise which was forwarded to the Higher Education Department for approval. Be it as it may, the administrative impediment pointed out in the application is that certain posts available for regularization fall within the reserved category and as post reserved for r...
Mahesh Kumar Pandey and ors. Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
1 W.P. No. 3333 of 2005 7.5.2013 Shri Kunal Thakre, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents. With consent, heard finally. Petitioner seeks quashment of orders dated 4.12.2004, 8.12.2004 and 27.12.2004. By order dated 4.12.2004 and 8.12.2004 petitioner, Assistant Grade III, Food Corporation of India was found eligible for voluntary retirement as per voluntary retirement scheme invogue vide Head Quarter Delhi circular No. E01200416 dated 29.6.2004. Whereas, by order dated 27.12.2004 petitioner is revealed from the post of Assistant Grade III on voluntary retirement w.e.f 27.12.2004. Basic facts that, the petitioner being in employment of the Food Corporation of India and was holding the post of Assistant Grade III when the FCI had introduced the voluntary Retirement Scheme vide circular dat...
L.K. Bhargava Vs. Smt. Snehlata Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
Conc. 154/2010 7/5/2013 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners are retired employees. They were working in the School Education Department and after retirement when interest on the GPF amount was not paid to them, they filed writ petition being W.P.No.18521/2006 (s).On 28.6.2008 the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to pay the interest, if not already paid within a period of three months. On the ground that interest has not been paid, this application was filed in the year 2010. It is kept pending and on 26.3.2010 notices were issued to the respondent but notices have not been served on the respondent. It is indicated that respondent is no more available, probably she is retired. Taking note of the aforesaid circumstances and considering the fact that petitioners are all senior citizen, it is directed that on the petitioneRs.filing certified copy of this order along with relevant claim for payment of interest, the present incumbent who ...
M/S N.S. Plastic Industries Office at Shop No.6 Pipleshwar Shiv Shakti ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
W.P.No.7591/2013 08/05/2013 Shri Manot Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. An appeal filed by the petitioner with regard to cancellation of his lease deed by the M.P.Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam is pending before Respondent No.1, who according to the petitioner is the Appellate Authority and it is stated that the appeal, which is pending vide Annexure-P1 since March, 2013, is not being decided. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, Respondent No.1/ Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Mudrika Prasad Dwivedi Vs. A.S.S.Zade
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
Mudrika Prasad Dwivedi versus A.S.S.Zade & ORS.Conc. No.1744 7. 5.2013: Ms.Malti Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned counsel for respondents. Interalia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 18.4.2011 in W.P.No.3707/2009 has not been complied with, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion on the post of timekeeper and take a decision within a period of two months. not respondents have considered and rejected the claim, as is evident from the documents filed along with the return, particularly Annexure R-1 dated 20.7.2011. According to the respondents not Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and appointment on the post of Timekeeper have to be made by direct recruitment and as the statutory rule prohibits promotion, it is stated that applicant's case cannot be considered. Taking note of the aforesaid explanation given by the respon...
Laxman Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
Writ Petition No ::8493. / 2013 Laxman Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 07.05.2013. Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Challenging the order-dated 10.4.2013 Annexure P/1 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Chhatarpur removing the petitioner from the office of President, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Sunwahara, Tehsil Bijawar, District Chhatarpur, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he is elected President of the said Samiti, he was duly elected in the elections held on 10.1.2013, and not respondent No.4, a candidate who had contested the election alongwith the petitioner and had lost, filed a complaint and on the complaint without hearing the petitioner the impugned action is taken. The impugned action is challenged on two grounds. The fiRs.ground is that by an executive and administrative order petitioner cannot be removed from the offic...
Utkarsh Indsutries Pvt Ltd Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
UtkaRs.Industries PVT.LTD.& ORS.versus State Bank of India Writ Petition No.8029 7. 5.2013: Shri Satish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Kherdikar, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. Challenging the proposed action of conducting the auction and contending that the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur is not available, this writ petition was filed and this Court had passed an interim order on 26.4.2013. not it is reported that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has started functioning and, therefore, the appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act pending before the said Tribunal can be taken- up for consideration. In view of above, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prosecute the appeal filed by him under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, as reported the auction in question is to be held tomorrow, if that be so, the auction can be conducted b...
Sangeet Singh and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
1 Cr.A. No.1576 of 2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1576 of 2003 APPELLANTS:1. Sangeet Singh @ Pappu Singh S/o Narayan Singh, aged about 21 years 2. Arjun Singh S/o Gopal Prasad, aged about 21 years 3. Jagatdev Singh S/o Darbhangi Singh, aged about 22 years 4. Madhu Singh S/o Darbhangi Singh, aged about 27 years 5. Ramnarayan @ Pappu Pandit S/o Mahesh Prasad, aged about 31 years All residents of Nai Basti Ranjhi, Police Station Ranjhi, District Jabalpur (M.P.). Versus RESPONDENT: The State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Police Station Ranjhi, District Jabalpur (M.P.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellants : Shri Arun Vishwakarma, Learned Counsel For the Respondent/State : Shri Amit Pandey, Learned Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...
M/S Yadav Construction Company Vs. Pradeep Pathak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2013
Conc. 400/2008 7/5/2013 Shri P.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vipin Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Inter alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 10.11.2006 in W.P.No.16011/2006 has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Petitioner was given a contract for construction and with regard to mineral consumed in the construction a dispute arose with regard to payment of royalty. Taking note of various judgments rendered in the matter, the writ petition was disposed of and as per directions issued in all the cases, petitioner also submitted a claim for payment and clearance of bill without payment of royalty and for establishing that the mineral consumed was purchased from the open market, petitioner filed an affidavit. However on examination of the same, respondents have rejected the claim and have pointed out to this Court that petitioner failed to establish by proper evidence that...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »