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.
Manmohan Vs. Vishwamwarnath Vishwakarma (D) Thr Lrs Smt. Saroj Mudariy ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
MCC No.33/2013 21.06.2013 Shri Komal Patel, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondents though respondent 1(a) and 1(b) served. Heard on admission. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2012 passed in SA No.408/2001 this Court has given a time limit upto 31.12.2012 to the applicant to vacate the suit accommodation with the certain conditions. That time limit was given as a part of the decree, which cannot be modified by this Court. It was essence of the decree that the applicant was required to vacate the suit accommodation within the stipulated period. Under such circumstances, the present application for extension of time is not maintainable. Consequently, the present application is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Executing Court for information. (N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Girdharilal Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
F.A.No.821/2012 21/6/2013: Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.9597/2012 an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Taking note of the averments made in para 3 and 4 of the said application and the procedural formalities required to be complied with for the purpose of filing the appeal, we find justification in condoning the delay. Even though Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General & ORS.versus Living Media India LTD.& Anr. reported in 2012 AIR SCW 181.to say that the delay of more than two and a half years should not be condoned, but a perusal of the observations made in the said judgment goes to show that it is indicated that Supreme Court has held if the appeal is filed by the departmental authorities and reasoned justi...
Jadon and Company Vs. Vikas Goudha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
SA No.306/2010 21.06.2013 Shri Bhagwan Singh Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. The appellant has filed the civil suit No.376- B/2006 for recovery of his sale price relating to supply of printed material to the respondent in previous yeaRs.but the same was dismissed being barred by limitation vide judgment dated 17.9.2008 passed by the Third Additional Judge to the FiRs.Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal. The Civil Appeal No.422-B/2008 filed by the appellant was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2009. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decree and judgments, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal. The plaintiff's case, in short, was that a supply of printing material was given to the respondent on credit in the year 2001-02 and 2002-03. The entire material of Rs.2,56,678/- was supplied and the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.1,94,824/-, and therefore a sum of Rs.61,854/- was due towards the defendant. A notice was given to the defendant, but...
Ms. Priyanka Ratonia Vs. Dept. of Culture
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
W.P.No.10646/2013 Priyanka Ratonia vs. Department of Culture & ANo.21.06.2013 Heard Shri Shivendra Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to permit her to participate in the written examination being conducted by the respondents for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Lecturer in Music. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a qualified Tabla player and fulfills the eligible educational qualification prescribed by the respondent authorities inspite of which she has not been permitted to participate in the written examination and, therefore, appropriate direction be issued by this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the requisite eligibility qualification prescribed by the authorities at page 18 of the petition, for the post of Assistant Lectur...
Munna Lal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
Writ Petition No.10435/2013 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...
Ramnarayan Yagvalkya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
W.P.No.8837 / 2013 (RamnarayanYagvalkya ..versus State of M.P.& others.) 21-06-2013 Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging non- compliance by the respondent/authorities of the order dated 28-7-2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3597/2009(S) by which this Court had directed the Gram Panchayat, Jamgarh, Janpad Panchayat Badi, District Raisen to take up proceedings for appointing a Panchayat Karmi in accordance with law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of specific and clear directions by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition the respondent/authorities have directly appointed respondent No.5 as Panchayat Karmi. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition and the documents filed therewith, specially, Annexure P-7, dated 6-8-2012, which is an order passed by the C.E.O., Jila Panchayat, Raisen, i...
Smt. Aruna Sahu Vs. Usha Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
MCC No.1314/2012 21.06.2013 Smt. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate for the applicants. Shri A. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Heard on admission. The applicants have moved the present application under Section 24 of the CPC for transfer of the case pending under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act before the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur at Sl. No.17/2010. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that amongst the applicants, the applicant No.2 is a male member, who can defend the proceeding at Gadarwara on behalf of the applicant No.1. The respondent No.1 is a natural mother of the child and all such objections relating to her conduct are to be raised before the trial Court. Only convenient of the applicant No.1 cannot be seen for prosecuting a case of guardianship. The ground taken by the applicants that it would be inconvenient for the applicants to proceed from the Jabalpur to Gadarwara appears to...
Khemchandra Vs. Pushpendra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
W.P.9653 o21. 6.2013 Shri Devendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner/defendant no.2 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 9.4.2013, passed by Civil Judge Class Laudi, District Chhatarpur in Civil Original Suit No.16-A/2011, whereby his application filed for dismissal of the suit, on the ground that Chetram Rajput son of Sukhlal Rajput, who has filed the impugned suit on behalf of respondent no.1 & 2 the minors as their next friend and guardian, being not working in their welfare is not entertainable, has been dismissed. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the papers placed with the petition argued that the aforesaid next friend and guardian of minot respondents no.1 & 2 contrary to their interest, has sold their property and accordingly, he is not working in the welfare of such minor, therefore, the suit filed by such next friend and guardian could neithe...
Western Coalfields Limited Vs. Nousabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
1 W.A.No.02/2013 Western Coalfields Limited and others vs Nousabai 21/06/2013 Shri Greeshm Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Govind Prasad Dubey, Advocate for the respondent. This appeal is directed against an order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the writ Court in case not W.P.4581/2008(s), by which, a writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed and directions were issued to the appellants herein to reconsider the claim of the respondent in pursuance to the settlement arrived at between the petitioner respondent and Smt. Fagni Bai for compassionate appointment and monetary compensation in accordance with the rules and schemes applicable, within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. This order has been assailed by the appellants mainly on the following grounds:- (i) That, the application was rejected by the appellants herein on 12.07.2004, but inspite of this, the writ petition was filed belatedly on 09.04.2008, which was beyond the period of...
Smt. Heera Bai Jharia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
M.C.C. No.713/13 21/06/13 Shri L.M.Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. By this application filed, petitioner wants correction of particulars of house and the property as was indicated in the pleadings made in W.P.No.6239/13, Smt. Heera Bai Jharia versus State of M.P.and otheRs.There is no error in the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6239/13. The error is in the pleading of the petitioner and if that be so, petitioner should either file an application seeking recall of an entire order, thereafter, amend the writ petition or file a fresh writ petition giving the correct fact. Accordingly, for the present, finding no case made out for passing any order in these proceedings, this application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition indicating the correct particulars of the property or to seek recall of an entire order passed in the writ petition and, thereafter, amend the writ petition. With th...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »