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.
Mr. Dhandu Prasad Ahirwal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.9407/2013 (D.P.Ahirwal and others versus State of MP and otheRs.28.06.2013 Heard Ms.Pratichi Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned G.A.for the State submits that a similar petition which has been registered as W.P.No.6129/13(S) raising identical issue has already been dismissed by this court on 15.04.2013, copy of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is produced before this court. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned G.A.for the State which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.the present petition filed by the petitioners is also dismissed in similar terms and for the same reasons, which may be read as part of this order as stated in W.P.No.6129/13(S) on 15.04.2013. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct/mms...
Kaluram Vs. Mangla Karoliya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
CR No.250/2013 Civil Revision No.250/2013 28.6.2013 Shri R.P.Agrawal, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Santosh Yadav, Advocate for the applicants. Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No.6837/2013, an application for staying the proceeding of the lower Court. The revision is preferred against the order dated 30.4.2013 passed by the learned 11th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCS No.153-A/ 2013. After considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, it appears that the objections raised by the applicants before the trial Court, by way of an application under order VII rule 11 of the CPC are dependant upon the evidence and therefore, such objections could not be decided by an application under order VII rule 11 of the CPC. Consequently, there is no mistake committed in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision cannot be accepted. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present civil revision filed by the applica...
Mahendra Lal Shrivastava Vs. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.9460/2013 Mahendra Lal Shrivastava vs. R.D.V.V.1 28.06.2013 Shri Vipin Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Amrit Ruprah learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that he has been regularized on the post of Peon instead of Lower Division Clerk while persons junior and similarly placed have been regularized on the post of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation filed by the petitioner in this regard. The learned counsel for the respondent University, on instructions, submits that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation, the University shall consider the same and pass orders thereon expeditiously in accordance with law. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effe...
Smt. Asha Chaturvedi Vs. Shri M. Selvendram , Collector,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
1 Conc. No. 1750 Of 2012 28.6.2013 Shri B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Umesh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Alleging willful disobedience of order dated 30.8.2012 passed in Contempt Petition No. 374/2012 this petition has been filed for initiating action against the respondents. Contempt Petition arose of order dated 14.7.2011 in W.P. No. 9624/2011 (A) which in turn was at the instance of one Ajit Kumar Shukla wherein petitioner was respondent No. 4; wherein the legality of order dated 10.6.2011 passed by Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa; whereby appointment of petitioner in W.P. 3624/2011 (S) on the post of Panchayat Karmi who was first in the merit list was quashed and respondent No. 4 (present petitioner) who was in the merit list was directly appointed. Writ Petition No. 3624/2011 (S) was decided on 14.7.2011 in the following terMs.Resultantly, the wri...
Aradhana Mishra Vs. Rampratap Chamar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
CR No.251/2013 Civil Revision No.251/2013 28.6.2013 Shri Shailendra Verma, Advocate for the applicants. Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No.6687/2013, an application for staying the proceeding of the lower Court. The revision is preferred against the order dated 29.4.2013 passed by the learned 6th Civil Judge, Class-II, Satna in civil suit No.15-A/2012, whereby the application under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC filed by the applicants was dismissed. The applicants have raised two objections mainly in the application under order VII rule 11 of the CPC. One of the points was that suit and appeal were already decided between the parties for the same suit property and the suit was barred by limitation. For the fiRs.objection, it was for the applicants to move an application under section 11 of the CPC, so that the trial Court may consider that point in a proper manner. Secondly, whether suit was barred by limitation is dependent upon the evidence and therefore, such objection cannot be...
Smt. Rajni Bai Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
1 W.P.No.16130/2012 28/06/2013 Shri H.S.Verm a, learned counsel for the petitio ne r. Heard. Petition er, a self help gro up was entrusted with the wo rk of distributio n of Mid day meal in Gov ern m e n t Prim ary and middle Schoo l Karaih a Kala An garwari Centre No.1,2 and 3 in 2007 (13.12.2007). The said work was discontin ued by Co.m un ic atio n dated 04.07. 2011 and was alloted to ano th e r self help group, viz Laxm i Seva Sahatya gro up. Aggrieved whereby, petitioner filed a writ petitio n W.P. 11336/2011, challenging the order on the alle gatio n that the contract has bee n unilate rally cancelled witho ut affording any opportun ity of hearing in arbitrary manner. The writ petition was dispo sed of on 08.08. 2011 with a liberty to the petitio ner to file fres h repre se n tatio n and the dir...
Ramgopal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.9175/13(S) (Ramgopal Sahu versus State of MP and otheRs.28.06.2013 Heard Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who is the Panch of the Gram Panchayat, Majhigawan, Post Mahkhor, Janpand Panchayt Manjhauli District Sidhi, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Sidhi whereby the respondent No.7, who was working as Panchayat Secretary of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, had been suspended on charges, has been reinstated and has been transferred to the Gram Panchayat, Dhadi Pathar , Janpad Pnchayat Kusumi District Sidhi. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were serious charges against the respondent No.7 and others regarding financial illegality and irregularity in various schemes and in such circumstance, proceedings under section 40 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 wer...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Tatu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.10506/2013 State of M.P. & Ano. vs. Tat28. 06.2013 Heard Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner/State. The petitioner/State has filed this petition being aggrieved by award dated 26.4.2012 by which the respondent, who was working as a Gangman and was superannuated on completing 30 years of service, has been reinstated with 50% back wages from the date of the award and has also granted 12% simple interested per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment of 50% back wages. It is submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State that the respondent has rightly been superannuated on her completing 30 years of service in view of the circular of the State Government dated 7/14.12.2001 but the court below has not considered the aforesaid aspect. Having heard the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State, it is observed that the issue raised by the State is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered i...
In Reference Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
Writ Petition No.10931/2013 28.06.2013 Shri R.D.Jain, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned Asst. Solicitor General for the Union of India. Shri Jain, learned Advocate General submitted that he has filed a latest report today i.e.a Chart (Annexure-R/5) showing the information in respect of persons who had visited Uttarakhand, the persons who have returned back home and the persons in respect of whom there is no information. From perusal of the Annexure-R/5, it is apparent that still there is no information from four districts and the columns are lying vacant. Shri Jain, learned Advocate General submits that he may be allowed short time to submit a complete information before this Court. We have taken cognizance of this matter on 24.6.2013 and till date, the machinery of the State is unable to find out how many persons had visited Uttarakhand when the disaster took place. The aforesaid information c...
Hitkarni College of Engg. and Technology, Vs. the State of Madhya Prad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-2013
W.P.No.13427/2012 28/6/2013: Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Sankalp Kochar, for petitioneRs.Shri R.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri P. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Shri M. Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.8893/2013. By this application filed on 27.6.2013 it is prayed for on behalf of the institute in question that counseling for admission to the academic session 2013-14 is going on and allotment of students to the petitioneRs.institute for conducting B.Arc. CouRs.for the session is being denied mainly on the ground that All India Council for Technical Education has not approved conduct of the couRs.by the institute. It is stated that the approval has been rejected on 10.4.2013, the same is also challenged in this writ petition and pointing out that rejection of the approval is on unfound facts which are not correct and pointing out that for the academic session 20...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »