Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Neeraj Vishwkarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
W.P.No.10698/2013 (Neeraj Vishwakarma versus State of MP and otheRs.26.06.2013 Heard Shri C.N.Karan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 14th of June, 2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division Jabalpur in Revision No.350/B-121/12-13. The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length prays for liberty to assail the impugned order dated 14.06.2013 before the appropriate authority of the State by filing a revision. Prayer is allowed. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a revision against the impugned order along with an application for interim relief before the appropriate authority. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so, the revisional authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the peti...
National Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Nayum Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
CR. No.337/2009 26.6.2013 Smt. Amrit Ruprah, counsel for the applicant. Shri M. Shafiquallah, counsel for the respondent no.1. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties matter is heard finally. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 13.8.2009 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Execution Case No.27 of 1998 by which an amount of Rs.42,977/- was directed to be deposited without one month from the date of order. The facts of the case in short are that in Lok Adalat of the High Court a compromise took place and on 22.11.2003, a award/order was passed by the Lok Adalat that the claimant shall get a lump sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation according to the compromise. The compensation shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the applicati...
Aditya College of Technology and Sciences Vs. All India Council for Te ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :9707. of 2013 Aditya College of Technology & Sciences - V/s - All India Council for Technical Education and others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Honble Shri Justice M.A.Siddiqui. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sidharth Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pramod Sharma, counsel for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 26/06/2013 Challenging the order and show-cause issued to the petitioner as contained in the communication made on 6.4.2013 and 29.4.2013, in the matter of rejecting an application submitted by the petitioner/Institute for the purpose of grant of extension of approval for starting a CouRs.i.e.Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift).and also withdrawing the letter of approval earlier granted for the Academic Session 2012-13, this w...
In Reference Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
1 W.P.No.10931/2013 In Reference Union of India & others 26.6.2013 Shri R.D.Jain, learned Advocate General with Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General are present for State of M.P.Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, present for Union of India. Shri Jain submits that the State Government has taken effective steps for rescuing the persons who were in Uttarakhand. It is submitted that till date as per information collected, 2836 persons had gone to Uttarakhand, out of them, 1193 have returned to their home. In respect of 707 persons, there is no information about their whereabouts. It is also submitted by them that information is still awaited from various places and this is the information which was collected till yesterday. It is also submitted that under the leadership of Hon'ble Minister Shri Laxmikant Sharma, various officers have been deployed at various places. Out of the officers who have been deployed, one IAS Officer Shri Sanjay Goyal and one I...
Vinay Kumar Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
Writ Petition No.9628/13 26.6.2013 Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the State. Heard. The petitioner/claimant has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 30.7.2012 (Annexure-P-5) whereby, his reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, inspite filing the same within limitation, has not been sent to the District Court by holding the same is filed barred by time with a further prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent no.2 to send his aforesaid reference to the reference Court. Petitioners counsel by referring Annexure-P-3, the initial reference application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act said that, the same was filed on 3.5.2012 for which, the endorsement was also made by the receiving clerk of the Office of respondents. In continuation he said that, he r...
Naoserma Khan Vs. General Manager
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
W.P.No.10699/2013 (Naoserma Khan versus General Manager and otheRs.26.06.2013 Head Shri U.K.Sharma, learned senior counsel with Shri P.N.Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 10th/11th of June, 2013 passed by the respondent No.3 Senior Manager (Mines) Rajendra Underground Mines, Budhar, District Shahdol whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Naogaon Hunk line to Rajendra Underground Mines. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the policy and settlement arrived at between the management and the Union. It is also stated that the petitioner has approached the competent authority by filing a representation against the impugned order of transfer on 17.06.2013 which has not been decided till date. In view of the aforesaid as there is an allegation regarding violation of the policy, without entering into the merits of the case or without commenting upo...
Swati Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
W.P.No.7485/2013 26/6/2013: Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Similar petitions filed have been disposed of on 13.6.2013 in W.P.No.9801/2013 and following orders have been passed by the Division Bench of this Court :- "The prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents for conducting a 'District Level Counseling' and allotting and effecting admissions of the petitioners to the various B.Ed institutions/ colleges of their choice for the academic session 2012-13. After hearing the counsel for the parties at length and keeping in view that the seats are still vacant at District Sagar and Damoh and the petitioners are also eligible as they have secured more than 60% marks, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a short direction that upon production of copy of the order passed today, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners for admission and if it is found that the pe...
Vinay Kumar Sahu Vs. Smt. Maya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
Writ Petition No.10305/2013 26.06.2013 Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-husband has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 17.4.2013, (P-4) passed in Hindu Marriage Case No.63/09 by Ist Additional District Judge, Mandla, whereby in the case filed by the petitioner against the respondent wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (in short The Act.) for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, an application filed by the respondent no.1- wife under Section 24 of aforesaid Act has been allowed and he has been directed to pay her Rs.2000/- per month as interim alimony till disposal of the petition and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, after perusing the record available, I have found sufficient circumstance for passing the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay interim alimony and the litiga...
Tekchand Parihar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
W.P.No.10448/2013 Tekchand Parihar & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 26.06.2013 Shri Sanjay Sharma learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the concerned authority for mitigation of the petitioneRs.grievance against the placement of their names in the list of candidates whose result has been withheld on account of certain mistakes. The petition is, accordingly, permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. It goes without without saying that in case the petitioners approach the respondent authorities alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and thereafter take a decision thereon or inform the petitioneRs.as the case may be, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition, filed by the petitioneRs.stands disposed of as ...
Laxmikant Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.17182/2012 Laxmikant Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri K.C. Ghildiyal and Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (25/06/2013) The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to two orders, one by which the respondent No.5 is taken on deputation to be posted as B.R.C.C. in the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan under the control of the Rajya Shiksha Kendra and the other order by which the services of the petitioner have been repatriated and he has been posted in the Tribal Department of Sidhi district. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was working in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »