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. Sangita Patel Vs. Narmada Gelatins Ltd. Factory
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 8857 Of 2013 15.5.2013 Shri Abhay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Petitioner vide this petition seeks direction to the respondents to supply the certified copies of the documents relating to petitioner's father's service record, last settlement, i.e., provident fund and gratuity and other funds. Apparently the direction is sought against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which are private companies and having failed to establish that they are rendering public duties, no mandamus can be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to supply documents as sought for by the petitioner in respect of direction to respondent No. 3. The petitioner having failed to establish that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being governed by Right to Information Act, 2005, no direction can be given to respondent No. 3 to seek documents from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at the behest of petitioner...
Manish Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Writ Petition No ::9164. / 2013 Manish Kumar versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 15.05.2013. Shri B.K.Bais for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is only claiming solatium and interest in accordance to the provisions of section 23-A of the Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the same has not been granted in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. If that be so, petitioner has a remedy of seeking reference under section 18. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application under section 18 has been filed before the Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the application filed under section 18, for reference to the District Judge in accordance to law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per r...
Giran Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Writ Petition No ::9255. / 2013 Giran Singh and others versus State of MP and others 15.05.2013. Shri Swapnil Ganguly for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. As objection of the petitioners are pending before respondent No.2 the Collector concerned, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioneRs.In the meanwhile, with regard to dis-possession of the petitioners also, respondent No.2 shall take note of their grievance and pass appropriate orders with regard to the same within a period of 10 days of the petitioners appearance. Till the Collector decides the matter finally or passes an interim order, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioneRs.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Hanumant Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. Shri Praveen Garg
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Hanumat Singh Raghuvanshi versus Shri Praveen Garg & ORS.Conc. No :1493. 15. 05.2013. Shri S.K.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Advocate General for respondents. Considering the compliance report submitted by respondents as contained in Annexure R-1 & R-2, reinstating the petitioner and granting consequential benefit, not no further action in this contempt proceedings are required. If petitioner has any grievance with regard to settlement of consequential benefit, he is granted liberty to claim the same in accordance to law. Accordingly, finding no case made out for initiating action for contempt respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Phoolchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :9194. of 2013 Phoolchand and others - V/s - State of MP & Collector, District, Narsinghpur. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R. Parashar, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 15/05/2013 Petitioners claim to be in possession of certain agricultural land, which was given to their ancestors much prior to coming into force of the M P Land Revenue Code, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Code).It is stated that in the settlement process that was conducted sometime in the year 1923-1924, the then Zamindars / Malgujars of the land gave the land to the ancestors of the petitioneRs.as they were working as Kotwars and since then the petitioners are in possession of th...
Khemchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :9038. of 2013 Khemchand and others - V/s - State of MP & Collector, District, Narsinghpur. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R. Parashar, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 15/05/2013 Petitioners claim to be in possession of certain agricultural land, which was given to their ancestors much prior to coming into force of the M P Land Revenue Code, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Code).It is stated that in the settlement process that was conducted sometime in the year 1923-1924, the then Zamindars / Malgujars of the land gave the land to the ancestors of the petitioneRs.as they were working as Kotwars and since then the petitioners are in possession of the...
Surendra Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1805/2010 Surendra Singh Baghel, aged about 37 years, son of Dal Bahadur Singh Baghel, Resident of Village Chandeniya Churhat, P.S. Churhat, Distt. Sidhi, Presently residing at Near Mata Mandir, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal Appellant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, through SHO P.S. Laur, Distt. Rewa Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri H.S. Dubey and Shri Anuj Singh, Advocates for appellant. Shri Pushpraj Singh, P.L. for the respondent-State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No.1821/2010 Indrapal Singh, aged about 34 years, Son of Harbhajan Singh Parihar, Resident of Khujwa, Laur Distt. Rewa Appellant vs. State of Madh...
Rajeshwari Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Rajeshwari Prasad Tiwari & ORS.versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :7623. 15. 05.2013. Shri Arvind Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State, on advance notice. Considering the fact that the representation Annexure P-4 is pending before the Land Acquisition Officer in the matter of distribution of compensation between joint holdeRs.the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to decide the representation in accordance to law within a period of two months and communicate the same to the petitioner. In case the Land Acquisition Officer feels that the distribution of compensation between the co-holders of property is not possible at his end, he is granted liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance to law and petitioner to take recouRs.of remedy available for resolution of dispute. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Gulab Singh Uike (Sarpanch) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Writ Petition No ::9247. / 2013 Gulab Singh Uike versus State of MP and others 15.05.2013. Shri K.K.Agnihotri for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Against the motion of no confidence passed, petitioner has a remedy of approaching the Collector under the provisions of section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam itself and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy available. Certified copy of the order be returned back to the petitioner, on his filing a photocopy of the same. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Kanhaiyalal Nankani Vs. Smt. Triveni Awasthi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Kanhaiyalal versus Smt. Triveni Awasthi & ORS.Writ Petition No :8876. 15. 05.2013. Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Against the order passed by learned District Judge, Jabalpur Annexure P-1 dated 10.4.2013, rejecting an application for temporary injunction, a miscellaneous appeal under Order 46 Rule 1-R is available to the petitioner and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.of said statutory remedy is not permissible. Accordingly granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal, as indicated hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. Certified copy of the order passed by District Judge, Jabalpur be returned back to learned counsel on his filing photocopy of the same, for filing the appeal. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »