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.
Mohd. Majid Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
Writ Petition No.10383/13 21.6.2013 Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the respondents No.1 & 2. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for appropriate direction to the respondent no.1 to decide his pending appeal No.67/12 filed on 21.05.2012, on some early date. Having heard the counsel, in the available circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondent no.1 to take an endeavour to hear and decide the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner on some early date probably within 45 days from the date of filing the certified copy of this order as well as copy of this petition with annexues in the Office of the respondent no.1. Petitioner is directed to submit the aforesaid papers in the Office of the respondent no.1 within 10 days from today....
Smt. Nosha Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
W.P.No.8793 21. 06-2013 Shri S.K.Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to assail the impugned order before the appellate authority. It is made clear that the petitioner would also be at liberty to file an application, in case so required, for condoning delay on the grounds mentioned by him in the petition which may be sympathetically considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct W.P.No.998 06. 11-2012 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh proceedings in case any cause of action survives or arises. The petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct...
Kunjilal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
Writ Petition No.10464/2013 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...
Devendra Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
W.P.No.1272/2011 Devendra Singh Rajput vs. State of M.P. & ORS.21.06.2013 Shri Maninder S. Bhatti learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State. Shri Praveen Dwivedi learned counsel for respondent no.4. Shri Vivek Porwal, Collector, Jabalpur and Shri Mukesh Jain, CEO present in person. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 21.12.2010 passed by respondent no.1 in the revision proceedings taken up by the respondent no.5 against the orders passed by the competent authority in proceedings relating to the issue of removing him from the post of Secretary of Gram Panchayat Konikala, Janpad Panchayat Majholi, Tehsil Sihora, District Jabalpur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed and was working as Secretary of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat since 1997. On 23.1.2001 a complaint was filed against him through a MLA of the local area which was forwarded to th...
Jamil and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
Cr.A. No.780/2001 Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.780 OF 200.APPELLANTS:1. Jamil S/o Mohd. Hussain Aged about 35 years, R/o Dashmesh Nagar, Bhopal (MP) 2. Salim S/o Mohd. Hussain Aged about 45 years, R/o Dashmesh Nagar, Bhopal (MP) 3. Haseeb S/o Mohd. Hussain Aged about 35 years, R/o Dashmesh Nagar, Bhopal (MP) Versus RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh Through : Arakshi Kendra Eshbag, Bhopal (MP) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellants : Shri Amit Verma, learned Counsel For the Respondent /State: Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing :12. 04.2013 Date of judgment :21. 06.2013 (JUDGMENT) Appellant Haseeb has assailed the judgment dated 20.04.2001 of learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Bhopal in Sessions Case No.12/2000, whereby convicted him under...
Chittar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
Writ Petition No.10426/2013 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...
Smt. Anju Singh (Ekka) Vs. Anil Kumar Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
R.P.No.292/13 21/06/13 Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned counsel for the respondent. Having heard Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned counsel for the respondent, no case is made out for review/recall of the order passed in W.P.No.10171/11. However, as the matter has been remanded back to the Court below and if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to payment of maintenance, she shall be at liberty to bring this fact to the Court below where the matter is pending and the Court below is expected to hear and decide the matter after hearing all concerned. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Shiv Prakash Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
R.P.No.434/2013 21/06/2013 Shri Vasudev Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed for review/ recall of an order passed by this Court on 5.3.2012 in W.P.No.11428/2010(s).It is stated in the review application that the petitioner has claimed for salary but on the ground that in the reply filed, respondents/State has indicated that the entire salary has been paid, the petition has been disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. It is stated that the contention raised by the State Government in the original writ petition to the effect that the salary is paid is not correct statement and as the writ petition was disposed of on incorrect statement, petitioner has filed another writ petition claiming the salary being W.P.No.21599/2012(s) and on 22.2.2013, a bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the order passed on 5.3.2012 in W.P.No.11428/2010(s).Having heard learned counsel for the applicant on the ground of review, it ...
Bhagchand Uikey Vs. Narayan Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
REVIEW PETITION NO ::243. / 2013 Bhagchand Uikey versus Narayan Prasad and others 21.06.2013. Shri Monesh Sahu for the applicant. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri V.K.Pandey for respondent No.3. This application has been filed for review/recall of an order- dated 25.2.2013, passed in M.A.No.2834/2005. An award was passed by the 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim Case No.3/2000. Against the said award, two appeals under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, were filed. Misc. Appeal No.2834/2005 was filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the award; and, Misc. Appeal No.109/2006 was filed by the Insurance Company challenging imposition of liability on them to make good the award, mainly on the ground that the Insurance Policy was cancelled as the cheque for payment of the premium had bounced. Be it as it may be, both the appeals were decided by a common order passed on 25.2.2013, in M.A.No.2834/2005. Now, in this application for review filed by the claimant...
Mohammad Iqbal Vs. Omkarchand Rathour
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
1 Writ Petition No.10537/2013. 21.6.2013 . Shri Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.2012 (Ann. P.1) passed by 11th Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur in C.S.No.296-A/12, whereby his application, filed under Section 35 of the Stamp Act r/w Section 151 of CPC for excluding the partition deed dated 26.12.2007 (Ann. P.4) from the evidence and consideration, has been dismissed. In the couRs.of the argument on admission in view of the provision of Section 36 of the Stamp Act on making certain query from the petitioneRs.counsel on which instead to argue further at this stage, he seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to challenge the impugned order on the grounds stated in the petition subject to final judgment and decree of the Trial Court on arising the occasion in duly constitute...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »