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.
Zaheer Ali Vs. Aukaf E Shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6866 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...
Rafiulla Beg Vs. Kusumbai Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
S.A.No.354/2005 6.5.2013 Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Govind Upadhyaya, counsel for the respondent. The appellant and the respondents are present. The learned counsel for the parties submit that they have filed I.A.No.4658/2013, under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC specifically enumerating the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The appellant and the respondent have signed the said application. They submit and pray that they have amicably settled the matter, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below be modified in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties in the following terms :- 1 ;g fd vihykFkhZ izfroknh gS ftlds fo#/n izFke vihy U;k;ky; esa vkKkfIr dh gS fd IykV ua0 1586 esa vihykFkhZ Onkjk okn i= ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa d].[k].x].?.k v{kjksa ls nf'kZr Hkkx dks gVkdj dCtk lkSaisxk A fjDr vf/kiR; lkSais tkus dh fLFkfr esa izR;kFkhZ oknh cus gq, fuekZ.k dks gVkdj fjDr vf/kiR; uxj ikfydk fuxe jhok d...
Bano Bee Vs. Aukaf-e-shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6841 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...
Sarju Daharwal Vs. Additional Commissioner Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Sarju Daharwal versus Additional Commissioner & Ors.Writ Petition No.5644 6. 5.2013: Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was a Sarpanch of Grampanchayat and a complaint was received with regard to misappropriation by petitioner to the tune of Rs.7,40,421/- based on the same, investigation was done and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner before the S.D.O.vide Annexure P-3, the said proceedings before the S.D.O.indicates that on 26.5.2012 a case was registered and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. From 26.5.2012 to 20.3.2013 various proceedings were held before the S.D.O.and on more than 10 occasions, time was granted to the petitioner to submit reply and file documents. The record indicates that except for taking time and delaying the matter the petitioner was not cooperating in proper enquiry, as a result the impugned action was taken and recovery of Rs.7,40,421/- was directed against the petitioner and it was ordered that in...
Paramjeet Singh Bedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.7917/2013 6/5/2013: Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv.for respondents on advance notice. Considering the fact that an application filed by the petitioner under Section 31 of the M.P.Sahakari Krishi & Gramin Vikas Bank Act, 1999 for handing over possession of the land purchased by the petitioner in an auction sale held is pending before respondent No.2, the Collector concerned, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, respondent No.2 shall decide the claim of the petitioner for handing over possession of the area in question in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Nageshwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Nageshwar. versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.8335 6. 5.2013: Shri Mahesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Seeking compensation in view of the residential plot and house acquired and contending that benefit of the scheme for rehabilitation has not been extended petitioner has submitted various representations, which is pending before the Collector concerned and under similar circumstances in W.P.No.14345/2010 a Bench of this Court on 18.04/2011 has already directed the Collector, respondent No.2, to consider and decide the representation. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present, without entering into controveRs.on merits and without expressing any opinion on the claim raised by petitioner, the Collector, respondent No.2, is directed to decide the representation in accordance to law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with relevant documents...
Kunwar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Kunwar Patel & Anr. versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.8325 6. 5.2013: Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Applications filed by the petitioner under Section 110 of the M.P.Land Revenue code seeking mutation are pending before respondent No.3 since 10.8.2010 and pointed out that the said applications are not being considered and decided, this writ petition has been filed. Taking note of the aforesaid grievance of petitioner it is directed that on petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, respondent No.3, the competent revisional authority shall decide the applications filed under Section 110 in accordance to law after hearing all concerned within a period of 3 months. With the aforesaid the petition stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Virendra Prasad Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Writ Petition No ::22122. / 2012 Virendra Prasad Patel and another versus State of MP and others 06.05.2013. Shri R.S.Tiwari for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Rajesh Maindiratta for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Challenging an order-dated 5.12.2012 Annexure P/19 passed by Collector, Jabalpur exercising powers under section 323 of the MP Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and suspending a resolution passed by Nagar Panchayat, Bhedaghat on 18.3.2010, petitioners have filed this writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that under section 323 of the Act, Collector could suspend the resolution and make a recommendation to the State Government and in this matter after the impugned action has been taken the matter has been referred to the State Government and is still pending. However, grievance of the petitioner in thi...
Bharat Lal Chourasia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.4204/2013 06/05/2013 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week. Shri Brian D'Silva, learned Sr.Advocate and Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel appears for the interveneRs.Interveners are permitted to participate in the proceedings. A copy of this petition along with annexures be supplied to learned counsel for the interveneRs.Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of interim relief. Petitioner wants stay of the order Annexure-P26 dated 7.2.2013 and the proposed review D.P.C to be held. Same prayer has been rejected on 28.2.2013 in W.P.No.2935/2013 and it is reported that even the Indore and Gwalior Bench has rejected similar prayer. In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of interim relief. Accordingly, prayer for interim relief stands rejected. List this petition for analogous hearing along with W.P.No.2935/2013. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Smt. Madina Begum Vs. Smt. Anita Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
CON.CR.No.10/2012 6.5.2013 Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General, for the State. Shri A.M.Trivedi, Senior Advocate, with Shri S.M.Patel, Advocate, for contemnot Gopal Kacholiya. Shri Rameshwar Neekhra, Senior Advocate, with Shri Parag S.Chaturvedi, Advocate, for contemnors Vijay Dubey, Madhu Kushwaha, Kaushlendra Vajpayee and Kapil Birthare. Shri Mrigendra Singh, Advocate for contemnot C.P.Purohit. Shri Abhishek Arjaria, Advocate for contemnot Jagjeet Singh Khanuja. It is reported by the District and Sessions Judge, Indore along with the memo of Ms.Bhavna Sadho, XXIInd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Indore complaining about alleged misbehaviour and contemptuous conduct of advocates Vijay Dubey, Madhu Kushwaha, C.P.Purohit, Kaushlendra Vajpayee, Kapil Birthare, Gopal Kacholiya and Jagjeet Singh Khanuja. After issuance of notice to the alleged contemnORS.C.P.Purohit, Advocate and Jagjeet Singh Khanuja in their separate reply have tendered an unconditional apology. We also f...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »