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.
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passed by this Court, an I.A.S.Officer, Shri Kedar Sharma, who was holding the charge of Director Prosecution, has been withdrawn by the State Government.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...
Salikram Patle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.A.No.412/2013 (Salikram Patle & anr. versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 6.05.2013 Shri R.B.Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. This appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P.No.6857/2013, dated 16-4-2013 whereby prayer of the petitioners-appellants seeking direction to the respondents for measurement and evaluation of the works done by them has been turned down. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Prescribed Authority).Waraseoni, District Balaghat, contained in Annexure-P/6, was not under challenge before the writ court. The only prayer before the writ court was for evaluation and measurement of the works executed by the appellants by some competent person. That the appellants had performed the works viz. construction of murram road and cement-concret drainage etc., however, without evaluation of the works executed by the appellants the...
iliyas Mohammad Vs. the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.7520/2013 06/05/2013 Shri Kamlesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri Sourabh Sundar, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. Challenging the order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge in M.J.C.No.66/2013 rejecting an application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for want of prosecution on 5.5.2010, 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.174/20...
Lolar Prasad Shukla Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.7531/2013 06/05/2013 Shri Aseem Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Inter-alia contending that petitioners are owners of various land as is indicated in Para-1 of the writ petition and the land of the petitioners are being acquired for the purpose of construction of by-pass road and without indicating any reason, action is being taken for dispossessing the petitioneRs.this writ petition has been filed. Annexure-P3 and P4 are objections and representations submitted by the petitioners in this regard before the competent authority namely, Respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is stated that no decisions has been taken on these applications and objections and the matter is being proceeded with. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that on the petitioneRs.filing a certified copy of this order, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall take note of the objections and representations submitted by the petitioners as indicated hereinabove and shall proceed to take action for construction of the...
Shivam Kumar Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Writ Petition No.8617/2013 6.5.2013 Shri Amit Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent no.1. Shri Manish Verma, Advocate for respondent no.2. Let notice be issued to respondent no.3 on payment of process fee within a week both by registered as well as ordinary posts. The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Pharmacy four years couRs.in respondent no.3 College. According to the petitioner he has attended all the classes of 7th semester, but due to his sudden serious illness he could not give the examination of that semester which was held in the month of November 2012. According to the petitioner the examination of 7th semester will be commencing from tomorrow and respondent no.3 has assured that it will complete all the formalities for him so that he may appear in the examination. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that if respondent no.3 completes all the required formalities, then respondent no.2 shall allow the petitioner ...
Manoj Kumar @ Mallelal JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
1 W.P.No.2579/2013 6.5.2013 Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for respondents No.1 to 4. Inter alia contending that respondent No.5 is interfering with the right of the petitioners with regard to the property in question and due to political influence of respondent No.5 police is not taking any action against him, this writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to the police authorities to initiate and register a criminal case against respondent No.5 with regard to his illegal activities as contended in the writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is clear that petitioners and respondent No.5 are related to each other. Respondent No.5 is brother of petitioners and there is a property dispute between the parties. The dispute in question is a pure civil dispute and complaint of the petitioners is with regard to the said property. The complaint is not such that a serious offenc...
Abdul Azeez Vs. Aukaf-e-shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6835 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...
Aneesa Bee Vs. Aukaf-e-shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6840 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...
NaseemuddIn Vs. Aukaf E Shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6868 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...
Tejilal Vs. Achchelal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2013
M.C.C.No.518/2009 03-05-2013 Heard Shri Suyash Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of S.A.No.501/95. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that due some reason he could not attend the hearing of the case which resulted in dismissal of S.A.No.501/95 for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.04.2009 passed in S.A.No 501/95 is recalled and the aforesaid is directed to be restored to its original number. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of S.A.No.501/95. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »