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.
Smt. Ranjana MaraThe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.8271/2013 6/5/2013: Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner a deserted woman and along with her two children are staying in the house in question bearing No.114, Laxmi Nagar, Tahsil and District Burhanpur. It seems that petitioner was earlier residing in the said house along with her husband who has not left her and due to certain act of the husband a civil dispute with regard to the house where petitioner is staying is pending in the Court of competent jurisdiction between the petitioner and one Shrirang Dhanke. Be it as it may be, grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that on a complaint made by Shrirang Dhanke the temporary electricity connection in the premises has been disconnected and not application submitted by petitioner before respondents No.2 and 3 for restoration of temporary electricity connection is not being looked into or promptly attende...
Venkatlal Khedia Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.7828/2013 6/5/2013: Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the 8 th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in certain arbitration proceedings held under Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner has filed this writ petition. One of the ground raised for challenging the order is that proceedings for arbitration are to be held at Jabalpur and as Arbitrator is transferred to Bhopal, he would not be able to conclude the proceedings and therefore, mandate of Arbitrator be terminated and fresh Arbitrator be appointed. The order passed by the Court below goes to show that the said ground was never canvassed before the Court below. On the contrary based on various facts that came on record, learned Court below granted two months time to conclude the proceeding. That being so, petitioner should file a separate application on this count before learned Court below and it would be for the Court be...
Durgadas Vs. Urmila Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Writ Petition No ::762. / 2009 Durgadas and another versus Smt. Koshaliya Devi and others 06.05.2013. Shri Ashok Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate, with Shri S.P.Dubey for the respondents. An application has been filed by the respondents being I.A.No.4878/2012, for dismissing the writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties with regard to the question of maintainability of this petition, it is seen that this writ petition has been filed challenging an order-dated 16.10.2008, passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior. The Board of Revenue in the order impugned has found that certain inquiries are to be held and, therefore, remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar for deciding the question after hearing all concerned. Even though the petition was admitted and it was directed that the orders passed by the Tehsildar shall be subject to final decision of this writ petition, it not transpires at the time of hearing that on the basis of the remand order...
Dharmendra Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.3552/2013 06/05/2013 Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. The dispute in question pertains to a dispute arising with regard to payment to the petitioner in relation to a works contract regarding construction of a school building. The agreement in question and Clause-29 thereof itself contemplates an arbitration clause for resolution of the dispute between the parties. As the dispute pertains to breach of contract and as in the agreement in question, there a provision for raising the dispute before the arbitrator, a writ petition directly before this Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available under law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Atamjeet Singh Chhabra Vs. Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Grameen Bank,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Writ Petition No ::21936. / 2011 Atamjeet Singh Chhabra versus Satpuda Narmada K.G.Bank and anr. 06.05.2013. Shri Praveen Pandey for the petitioner. Petitioner had taken certain loan from the respondent Bank and challenging the recovery initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, petitioner had filed this writ petition. Notice Annexure P/4 issued to the petitioner indicates that proceedings have been initiated under section 13. A Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.2013 (1) MPLJ 117 has already held once proceedings are held under section 13, petitioner has a remedy of approaching Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act and a writ petition before this Court is not maintainable. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available as indicated hereinabove. Certified copy as per rule...
Smt. Anita Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.7266/2013 06/05/2013 Shri Sharad Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order dated 10.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner Rewa, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of the Panchayat in question. A complaint with regard to preparation of false mustar roll and mis-appropriation of the money was made against the petitioner and, therefore, an enquiry committee consisting of four members namely, Secretary, Sub-Engineer, B.D.O and Assistant Engineer Janpad Panchayat Sohawal was constituted. The enquiry committee submitted the enquiry report and based on the enquiry report, findings are recorded against the petitioner and the action was taken for removing the petitioner from the post in question and also debar the petitioner from participating in the election for six yeaRs.Challenging the aforesaid action, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector and the Collector, at the interlocutory stage itse...
Shubrati Vs. Aukaf E Shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6842 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...
The City Connector Tour and Travels Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.A.No.417/2013 06.05.2013 Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri V. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Considering the short controveRs.involved in this case, we direct that this appeal be listed for hearing on 13.5.2013. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State shall seek instructions from the respondent No.2-RTO, Jabalpur, whether the objections filed by the respondent against grant of temporary permit to the appellant for the route, namely, Balaghat to Sagar via Seoni, Narsinghpur, Barman have been considered and decided and if not, then the respondent No.2 shall consider the aforesaid objection before next date of hearing after extending an opportunity to both the parties. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for necessary action. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge snb/-...
iakbal Mohammad Vs. the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.7523/2013 06/05/2013 Shri Kamlesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sourabh Sundar, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for Respondent No.2. Challenging the order dated 14.3.2013 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge in M.J.C.No.70/2013 rejecting an application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for want of prosecution, this writ petition has been filed. Similar orders passed by the same authority in rejecting proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been considered by this Court on 26.2.2013 in W.P.Nos.174/2013, 175/2013, 180/2013 and W.P.No.231/2013 and after taking note of the orders earlier passed under similar circumstances, identical orders passed have been quashed based on certain directions and decisions taken by a Division Bench of this Court in various cases. Keeping in view the grounds and reasons already indicated on 26.2.2013 in W.P.No.174/2013 and otheRs.this w...
Gyan Prakash Vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
---1--- W.P.No.529/2013 6.5.2013 Shri Gyan Prakash, petitioner in person. Shri R.D.Jain, learned Advocate General for Respondents/State. Shri Abhishek Arjariya, learned counsel on behalf of Shri Man Singh Achale.I.A. No.6660/2013, an application seeking intervention in the matter. Shri Jain, learned Advocate General has made a statement that in compliance of the order dated 18.4.2013 passed by this Court, an I.A.S.Officer, Shri Kedar Sharma, who was holding the charge of Director Prosecution, has been withdrawn by the State Government. The aforesaid statement is taken on record. On I.A.No.6660/2013 filed by one Man Singh Achale, seeking intervention in the matter, an objection has been raised by the petitioner that affidavit filed alongwith this application is not proper. On perusal of the aforesaid application, we find some substance in the objection raised by the petitioner. However, in the interest of justice we allow an opportunity to Shri Arjaria to file fresh affidavit in support...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »