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.
Ku. Pragya Bilgayan Vs. Board of Secondary Education, Mp.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
R.P.No.375/2013 (Ku. Pragya Bilgayan versus Board of Secondary Education) 06.05.2013 Shri Smt.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant has filed this application seeking review of the order passed by this court on 13.12.2012 in W.P.No.13649/12 dismissing the petition filed by the petition seeking revaluation of her answer sheets of the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the original valuation conducted by the Board is not in accordance with law and therefore, the order passed by this court be reviewed. It is observed that this court had called two subject experts who had examined the answer sheets of the petitioner and on that basis the petition has been dismissed. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot seek rehearing of the petition in review but can only seek review of the order in case there is a glaring mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. In the circumstances, I fi...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Iqbal Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
[1]. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR W.A. No.233/2012 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary, Sports and Youth Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. Director, Sports & Youth Welfare, Bhopal (M.P.) .............Appellants VERSUS Iqbal Khan, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Lal Khan, Assistant Grade-I, posted in the Directorate, Sports and Youth Welfare, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) ...... Respondent Present: Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Subhash Kakade ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate, for the appellants/State. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Shri C.A. Thomas, for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 06.05.2013 This appeal is directed against an order dated 19.10.2011 in W.P. No.7769/2007(S)...
Roop Narayan Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.8275/2013 6/5/2013: Ms.Sneh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Records indicate that certain objections filed by the petitioner with regard to acquisition of area in question particularly the land belonging to the petitioner as detailed in para 5.2 and 5.3 of the writ petition is pending before the Collector respondent No.2 and in that view of the matter for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 is directed to take note of the objection and representation of the petitioner and decide it in accordance to law before proceeding to acquire the land and dispossess the petitioner. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Basant Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.8276/2013 6/5/2013: Ms.Sneh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Records indicate that certain objections filed by the petitioner with regard to acquisition of area in question particularly the land belonging to the petitioner as detailed in para 5.2 and 5.3 of the writ petition is pending before the Collector respondent No.2 and in that view of the matter for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 is directed to take note of the objection and representation of the petitioner and decide it in accordance to law before proceeding to acquire the land and dispossess the petitioner. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs. the Registrar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.7585/2013 6/5/2013: Shri Niranjan Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 on advance notice. Challenging an order dated 23.10.2012 passed by the Registrar exercising powers under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the M.P.Public Trusts Act, 1951, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is pointed out by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents that against an order passed by the Registrar, Civil Suit is maintainable under the M.P.Public Trusts Act and therefore, this petition without taking recouRs.to the said statutory remedy is not permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Ram Mandir Trust versus State of M.P.- 2011(2) MPLJ Page 560 to say that as no enquiry has been conducted in the matter, interference be made directly by this Court. Taking note of the documents available on record and order passed by t...
Munnibai Aarakh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Munnibai Aarakh. versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.8421 6. 5.2013: Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging the orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 passed by the S.D.O.and the Collector, Panna in the matter of determining social status of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. According to the petitioner she belongs to Aarakh Community which is notified as Scheduled Tribes Community in the State of Madhya Pradesh in accordance to presidential notification issued. Annexure P-3 is the list of scheduled tribes caste notified in the State of Madhya Pradesh and by pointing out that in the said notification persons belonging to Aarakh community in the State of M.P.are to be treated as scheduled tribes petitioner sought issuance of proper caste certificate. However, treating the petitioner to be a person belong to a Khangaar caste, falling in the scheduled caste category certificate was iss...
Alia Bee Vs. Aukaf E Shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6872 of 2013 6.5.2013 Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Raising a grievance that the petitioner has No. been afforded a reasonable opportunity to file a written statement/ reply in a proceeding initiated under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995; petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of orders Annexure P1A and P1B; (whereby the right to file written statement/reply has been closed). And direction to the Secretary, AukaafeShaahi, to give the petitioner opportunity to file written statement/reply. Proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from Wakf Property emanates from the order dated 19.10.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 13895/2008 (M.P. Hanfi v. The State of M.P. and others).Said writ petition was a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction for removal of encroachment over 40 acres of Wakf Property; wherein, the Division Bench...
Abdul Majeed Vs. Aukaf-e-shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6873 of 2013 6.5.2013 Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Raising a grievance that the petitioner has No. been afforded a reasonable opportunity to file a written statement/ reply in a proceeding initiated under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995; petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of orders Annexure P1A and P1B; (whereby the right to file written statement/reply has been closed). And direction to the Secretary, AukaafeShaahi, to give the petitioner opportunity to file written statement/reply. Proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from Wakf Property emanates from the order dated 19.10.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 13895/2008 (M.P. Hanfi v. The State of M.P. and others).Said writ petition was a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction for removal of encroachment over 40 acres of Wakf Property; wherein, the Division Bench...
Smt. Sushama Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.A.No.88/2013 06.05.2013 Shri Brahmendra Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.1.2009 passed in W.P.No.8611/2006, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. This appeal is barred by 1415 days for which the appellant has moved an application No.1410/2013 for condonation of delay. Facts of the case are that the appellant had challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of Guruji under Education Guarantee Scheme and posted at Education Guarantee School situated at Khairahiya, Village Noudhihwa Tahsil Chitrangi, District Sidhi. Vide order dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure-P/11).the appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the Collector and the respondent No.3 was appointed on the said post. The contention of the appellant before the writ Court was that the appellant was more meritorious than the respondent No.3, but ignoring...
Sunny JaIn Vs. M.P. Warehousing and Logistic Corp.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.7453/2013 06/05/2013 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Considering the fact that for allotment of the contract in question for operation of a Weith Bridge, the action was already taken and the contract of Weigh Bridge was allotted to the petitioner in accordance with the agreement entered into between the parties on 18.3.2013 vide Annexure-P4 and orders were passed vide Annexure-P5 giving permission to the petitioner to operate Weigh Bridge, the impugned action for re-auctioning the Weight Bridge without notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to give his say and without cancelling the earlier operation is unsustainable. In view of the above, further action in pursuance to the impugned advertisement Annexure-P1 dated 25.3.2013, so far as it relates to Serial No.1 of the said advertisement shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Certi...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »