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.
Mukhtar Qureshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.613/2013 24.06.2013 Ms.Manju Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. The short question involved in the present petition is whether a promotion granted to the petitioner could be recalled or cancelled only because subsequently a charge sheet is issued to the petitioner for the misconduct said to be committed by him while he was working on the feeder post. The petitioner who was working as Sub Inspector, was considered for promotion and since he was found fit for such promotion, by order dated 12.9.2012, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Police Inspector and was posted in the CID zone. The petitioner carried out this order, gave his joining and started working. All of a sudden on 22.12.2012 an order of cancellation of promotion was issued by the respondents indicating that in a matter, the competent authority has granted sanction to initiate ...
Bhagwandas Vs. Dharam Prakash Chatwani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No ::6363. / 2013 Bhagwandas versus Dharam Prakash Chatwani 23.06.2013. Shri Pushpendra Yadav for the applicant. Challenging an interlocutory order-dated 14.3.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge (Atrocity).Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.714/2012, rejecting certain application and revision filed by the petitioner in the matter of examination/re- examination of witnesses in a proceeding pending under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the JMFC, Bhopal in Complaint Case No.10481/2010, this application under section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Certain proceedings have been initiated against the applicant by the respondent on the ground that two Cheques given have bounced and, therefore, an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been established. The complaint has been put to trial and after recording the statement of witnesses, it seems that the complainant filed an appli...
Radheshyam Sahu Vs. Smt. Manju Devi Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Writ Petition No.10691/2013 24.06.2013 Shri A.P.Shah, 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 2.5.2013, passed by the Court of District Judge, Singrouli in Marriage Case No.43-A/12, whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner has been directed to pay her Rs.1500/- per month as interim alimony and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. In the couRs.of arguments in response of some query of the court, the petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to file an appropriate application for review alongwith some documents, according to which the respondent is earning money from some factory in which she is working. Considering such prayer, without expressing any opinion on merits of the impugned order, this petiti...
Ghasiram Vs. Veera Lal Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
CR. No.229/2013 24.6.2013 Shri Harish Agnihotri, counsel for the applicants. Heard on admission. The present revision is filed by the applicants against the order dated 21.2.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class II, Udaypura in Civil Suit No.64-A/2012 whereby the application filed by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed. The plaintiff has prosecuted a suit for specific performance of contract. The applicants have raised some objections by way of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.The applicants have raised such objection about limitation of the suit, Court fees and that the plaintiff did not ask for possession of the property. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is apparent that value of the suit is to be done on the basis of the agreement and agreed sale amount. For specific performance of the contract, it is not necessary that the suit shall be valued upon the present cost of the property....
Smt. Usha Verma Vs. Ram Chandra Adatiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
MCC No.580/2013 21.06.2013 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned PL for the applicant. Before making the submission on admission, he fairly submitted at bar that the impugned suit is still pending before the trial court. As such, the same has not been disposed of in any manner. His submission is taken on record. The counsel is heard. This petition is preferred by the applicant -petitioner for restoration of W.P.No.5846/2010, which has been dismissed on account of not compliance of the peremptory order dated 4.1.2013 directing the applicant petitioner to pay the requisite PF, which was not paid on behalf of the applicant till the aforesaid date in the last one one year. The applicant- petitioner's counsel by referring the averments of the petition said that at the time of passing th order due to bonafide mistake, he could not note the order with peremptory direction, so same could not be complied with within time and later due to mistake of his official clerk, the file was not tracable. So in compl...
Smt. Neera Mishra Vs. Prem Narayan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
R.P.No.220/13 21-06-2013 Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed for correcting the certain errors in the order passed by this court in M.A.No.41/2013 on 15-02-2013. When the said Miscellaneous appeal which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was taken up for hearing, it was found that there is delay of 23 days in filing the appeal and the application for condonation of the delay is not filed. There was some defect with regard to payment of court fee. Accordingly, it was observed by this court that the delay of 23 days is not sought to be condoned by filing application for condonation of delay and court fee has not been paid . The appellant was directed to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file fresh appeal after rectifying the defect . Now, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the delay of 23 days as noticed in M.A.No.41/13 is an error committed in as much as the delay has been note aft...
Tanzeel Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
1 AFR HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISON BENCH WRIT PETITION No.2597/2013 Tanzeel Khan, aged about 24 yeaRs.s/o Mohd. Idrees, r/o House No.215, Behind Ravinder College, Panchsheel Nagar, Bhopal, M.P.Versus 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Secretary, Home Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P.2. Collector, Bhopal, M.P.3. Superintendent of Police, Bhopal, M.P.4. Town Inspector, T.T.Nagar, Bhopal, M.P.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner: Shri A.K.Pare, Adocate. For the State: Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.A.SIDDIQUI ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing:...
Sita Ram Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
Writ Petition No.10403/13 21.6.2013 Shri Amal Pushpa Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the State/respondent No.1 to 3. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ directing the respondent no.3 to ensure compliance of its order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure-P-1) and evict the respondents no.4 & 5 from Government land bearing Patwari Halka No.48, Khasara No.283 and 298 admeasuring 1.86 Hectare at Gram Panchayat Lakhapateri Tahsil Katni District Katni. In the available circumstances, instead to admit or issuing any notice to the other side, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondents no.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-P-3 to P-5) filed by the petitioner in the Office of the respondents no.2 & 3 respectively with a speaking order within 45 days from the date of s...
Deepmala Infrastucture Pvt. Ltd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
W.P.9934 o21. 6.2013 Shri Siddarth Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for the respondents/State. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs :- (a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order/ direction quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 12.4.2013 and all subsequent proceedings pending before the respondent District Registrar, Bhopal against the petitioner. (b) Any other order or direction deemed just and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case may also be passed with costs. Having heard the counsel, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the papers placed on the record. In the available circumstances, I am of the view that against the show-cause notice Annex.P/ 1, this petition could not be entertained when the proceeding is still pending for consideration and adjudication before the District Registrar and Collector of Stam...
Prakash Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
Writ Petition No.10466/2013 21.06.2013 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned PL for respondent no.2. The petitioner working as Kotwar/Choukidar of the village has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ of Mandamus directing the authority of respondents to decide his claim/representation, (Ann. P-5).in the light of notification dated 3.3.2010, (Ann. P-3) and the order of this court dated 17.1.2013, (Ann. P-4) passed in W.P.No.939/2009. Having heard the counsel, in the available circumstances, instead to admit or issuing any notice to the other side, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authority of respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, (Ann. P-5).keeping in view the aforesaid notification (Annexure P-3) and order of this Court, (Ann. P-4) in a speaking manner within six months from the date of submitting a copy of this o...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »