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.
Mohd. Nawab Vs. Aukaf-e-shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6844 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...
Govind Khangar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.8160/2013 06/05/2013 Shri Rajesh Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging a proposed action for conducting and taking into consideration a motion for no confidence against the petitioner in accordance with M.P.Panchayat Rajya Awam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, petitioner has filed this writ petition. At this stage when only a motion for no confidence has been moved and when meeting and voting with regard to the motion is yet to be taken place, interference by this Court exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not called for, when a right to file an appeal/ revision is available to the petitioner under law after the motion is finally decided. Accordingly, finding the petition to be not maintainable at this stage, the same is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Gopal Das Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.3335/2013 06/05/2013 Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued by the statutory authority, restraining the petitioner from conducting Puja in the temple in question. Keeping in view the dispute in question, which pertains to right of the petitioner to perform Puja in the temple in question, the petitioner should take recouRs.to the remedy of approaching the statutory authority under the M.P.Public Trust Act and, therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. Accordingly, directing the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available under law, the petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Smt. Mahrunnisa Vs. Aukaf-e-shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6845 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...
Kishore Samrite Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Cr. Appeal No.27/2010 6.5.2013 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Sr.Counsel with Shri Ankur Shrivastava for appellants. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, PL for State. Heard on I.A.No.9533/2013, which is an application under section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.for stay of conviction of appellant No.1 Kishore Samrite/ applicant. The applicant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 435/149, 332/149, 427/149, 147 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to R.I.for 5 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, R.I.for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I.for 1 year, R.I.for 1 year, R.I.for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the substantive jail sentence of applicant has been suspended and he has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 1.2.2010. The applicant is an Ex-MLA. He was a dedicated public servant and he has served the as...
Mahendra Singh Chauhan Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Marketing ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.8183/2013 6/5/2013: Shri Raj Baharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ramakant Patel, learned counsel appears for respondents No.1 and 2 on instructions from Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Challenging the proposed finalization of contract for transportation of wheat in District Singrauli undertaken by District Marketing Officer, respondent No.2, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Referring to Clause 2.1.5 and 2.1.11 of the terms and conditions of the Contract Annexure P/1, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that respondent No.4 who is proposed to be awarded the contract and whose contract documents are being processed does not fulfill the conditions stipulated in Clause 2.1.5 and 2.1.11 and in support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the tender documents submitted by respondent No.4 as contained in Annexure P/2, the list of vehicles owned by him and taken in c...
Smt.Kusum Bai Vs. Munni Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
S.A.No.71/2008 6.5.2013 Shri Govind Upadhyay learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned 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.4650/2013, 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 j...
R.P. Agrawal Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
R.P.Agrawal versus Union of India & ORS.Writ Petition No.15419 6. 5.2013: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of order passed today in M.C.C.No.583/2013 this writ petition is restored to its original file and for the reasons made by learned counsel for the petitioner the writ petition is taken-up for hearing today. As prayed for by learned counsel he is permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to prosecute the matter before the revisional authority, namely the Government of India. In view of the liberty granted to the petitioner for intervention in the proceedings by virtue of order passed on 1.3.2013 in W.P.7961/2011. If the petitioner has already filed an application for intervention, in view of passed on 1.3.2013 in W.P.No.7961/2011, the said application for intervention shall be considered and decided in accordance to law. That apart, if petitioner files a revision petition that be also considered in accordance to law. With the aforesaid libe...
Mehmooda Vs. Aukaf-e-shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6838 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...
Munne Qureshi Vs. Aukaf E Shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6839 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »