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.
In Reference Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P. No.10931/2013 24.06.2013 Shri R.D.Jain, learned Advocate General for the respondent/State. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. Looking to the grave situation at Uttarakhand where a severe disaster has occurred on 16.6.2013 and thousands of people have lost their lives and thousands have affected but no basic amenities like food, drinking water, medical aid etc. have been provided to the persons who are affected in the disaster, this matter has been taken up as PIL. As per the report, the dead bodies are not disposed of properly, ladies are facing atrocities, persons are stuck there and unable to contact with anybody, who can extend them help or to send them back to their home. Shri R.D. Jain, learned Advocate General submitted that the State Government has taken steps to provide every type of help to the disaster affected persons. One Hon'ble Minister Shri L. K. Sharma has been sent to Haridwar to monitor all the arrangements. Hundred fif...
Omprakash Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
MCC No.51/2013 MCC No.51/2013 24.6.2013 Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. The applicant has moved a contempt petition No.461/2012 for grant of benefit vide order dated 13.10.2010 in W.P.No.14295/2010 (S) but, vide order dated 2.4.2012, the single Bench of this Court has dismissed the contempt petition being barred by limitation. On 12.4.2013, an opportunity was given to the learned counsel for applicant whether such type of application is maintainable as it is filed by the applicant in the present matter. The learned counsel for the applicant could not show any case law of Hon'ble the Apex Court on this point. The applicant had relied upon the order dated 4.1.2013 passed by the single Bench of this Court in MCC No.1382/2012. However, it is an interim order. If a writ is issued in favour of the petitioner then, due to not compliance of that writ, a contempt petition may be moved. The present applicant could not ...
Mukesh Kumar Saket Vs. Smt. Sunita Saket
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
F.A.No.970/2012 26/06/2013 Respondent (Smt. Sunita Saket) to bring on record the orders passed by the court below for granting maintenance of `1,000/-. It is only after going through the reasons given by the court below for granting maintenance of `1,000/- that the application for enhancement of the maintenance shall be considered. A week's time is granted to bring on record the order passed by the court below. In the meanwhile, appellant may also file his reply to the application filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. List in the week commencing from 15th of July, 2013. (Rajendra Menon) (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge Judge nd...
i.D. Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.A.No.520/2013 24.06.2013 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Maninder S. Bhatti, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Lokayukt, Madhya Pradesh directed the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare vide order Annexure P-4 dated 16.10.2012 to inquire into the complaint made against the appellant and to submit report within two months to the Lokayukt. Thereafter an inquiry was conducted by a Committee, of which report Annexure P-5 was submitted to the Collector, Mandla in which on point no.2 some findings have been recorded but the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare vide order Annexure P-7 dated 30.04.2013 directed Collector, Mandla to lodge a report against the appellant as in the inquiry some finding has been recorded that the petitioner had received Rs.40,000/- from the contractor by way of cheque. It is submitted that as per the letter of the...
Rewaram Jat Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Jha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Contempt Case No.6/2013 24.6.2013 Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.C.Chandak, learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has received the information that the M.P.Road Transport Corporation has decided to file an SLP against the order dated 16-8-2012 passed in W.A.No.455/2012. In this regard letter of the Corporation is filed along with reply of the respondent No.2. It is prayed by Shri Chandak that further four weeks time may be allowed to the respondent No.2 to produce order of the Apex Court. It is also submitted by him that the respondent No.2 is not the Divisional Manager of the Corporation at Bhopal but, he is only taking care of legal affairs of the Corporation and he is Divisional Manager (Law) at the Divisional Office, Bhopal. He has no obligation for compliance of the order dated 16-8-2012 passed in the writ appeal. The aforesaid aspect will be considered after a period of four weeks. We adjo...
Smt Shakuntala Balwant Rao Dadhe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.6616/2010 (Smt. Shakuntala Balwant Rao Dadhe..Vs..State of M.P.& others ) 24-06-2013 Shri Dhananjaya Asati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief of granting compassionate appointment to her daughter on the ground that the petitioner has been suffering from a serious blood disorder and there are less chances of her survival. The respondents have filed a return and stated that the petitioner has been granted compassionate appointment on 8-1-2004 on the post of Contract Teacher and since then she has been working as such with the School Education Department. It is submitted that not she has filed an application seeking relief of compassionate appointment to her daughter in her place on account of her illness, which is not permissible in law as there is no policy of the State to grant such compassionate appointment. On repeated queries...
Ravindra Nath Tripathi Vs. the National Highway Authority of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.7895/2013 1 Ravindra Nath Tripathi vs The National Highway Authority of India & others 24/06/2013 Petitioner present in person. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.4 to 6/State. It appears that it is a private litigation and not a public interest litigation. The petitioner is raising his own cause and the dispute is in respect of collection of the toll in respect of his own bus. As per the petitioner, the toll is collected at the rate of Rs.280/- per return trip, which is excessive and the toll cannot be demanded more than Rs.135/- per return trip and the petitioner should be allowed some concession from the payment of toll. The aforesaid dispute can be decided at the instance of respondent No.1, who is incharge of the said toll. If there is a dispute in respect of nature of the vehicle, the respondents may collect the toll subject to decision of the nature of the vehicle by the concerned trans...
Balaganj Prathmik Upbhokta Bhandar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Writ Petition No.20887/12 24.6.2013 Shri Priyank Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the State/respondent. Looking to the nature of question involved in this petition instead to hear the same only on the question of admission, with the consent of the parties the same is heard finally. ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of the order dated 04.12.2012 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the Collector Hoshangabad, respondent No.2 in revenue case No.98-B121/Year 2012-13 whereby, the Fair Price Shop allotted to the petitioner-Society under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) order 2009, (In short the Order 2009) has been cancelled and pursuant to it, the licence of such shop has also been revoked. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on record argued that the impugned order has bee...
R.K. Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.10483/2013 (S) (R.K.Soni ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.24-06-2013 Heard Shri Vivek Rusia learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Grade-II in the Office of the District Programme Officer, ICDS, Mandla, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 17-5-2012 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Mandla to Katni. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation (Annexure P-2) against the impugned order of transfer before the respondent No.3 but the same has not been decided by the authority till date. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition to the concerned authority within a week of obtaining the same, the aut...
Ashrafilal Vs. Maganlal Kori
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
1 W.P.No.9582/13 Writ Petition No.9582/2013. 24.6.2013 . Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2013 passed by 14th Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur in Co.No.231-A/2012 dismissing their application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of the Commissioner to call the report regarding present status of the disputed site, has been dismissed. In the couRs.of the arguments in view of the averments of the impugned order on asking the petitioner's counsel regarding present status of the impugned trial, on which he fairly submits that the same is at the stage of recording the evidence of the parties, on which on making the query that without recording the evidence of the parties in trial how the trial Court can permit either of the parties to call the evidence through Court agency in support of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »