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.
S.K. Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
R.P.No.496/2013 21/06/2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Parag Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed for review/ recall of an order dated 14.5.2013 passed in W.P.No.10570/2012(s).Having heard learned counsel for the applicant Shri Rajendra Tiwari and Shri S.P.Rai learned Penal Lawyer on advance notice, it is seen that the writ petition was disposed of on 14.5.2013 under the assumption that the writ petition was challenging an order of transfer. However, infact the question of posting of a Principal in the school of Excellence and the right of the petitioner for promotion and his posting on such promotion was involved and under such circumstances, the writ petition was found to be disposed of without appreciating the facts correctly. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the order passed on 14.5.2013 in W.P.No.10570/2012(s) is recalled. W.P.No.10570/2012(s) be restored to it's original file and it be placed for order...
Nathuwa Through Lrs Binaiya Chamar Vs. Gariba
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
MCC No.372/2013 21.06.2013 Shri D.K.Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Qasim Ali, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. The applicants have preferred the present application for restoration of SA No.366/1996, which was dismissed on 14.2.2013 due to non- appearance of the learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 has no objection if the present application is allowed. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. It is directed that SA No.366/1996 be restored to its original number. Both the parties are directed to remain present before this Court on 25.6.2013 to argue SA No.366/1966. With the aforesaid, present MCC is hereby disposed off. (N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari...
Gram Panchayat Sahlolwa Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
W.P.No.8740 / 2013 (Gram Panchayat Sahlowa ..versus State of M.P.& others.) 21-06-2013 Shri Manot Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Shri P.S.Gaharwar, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 on caveat. Heard on the question of admission. The present petition has been filed by the Gram Panchayat Sahlowa, Janpad Panchayat Teonthar, District Rewa through Ramsiya Verma, the Ex. Sarpanch of this Gram Panchayat. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Gram Panchayat has authorised the Ex. Sarpanch to file the present petition. In the circumstances, in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Bamrol v. Jagdish Singh Rawat and otheRs.2008 (3) MPLJ 127 I find that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.Jha) mct Judge...
Smt. Sushila Bai Vs. Smt. Bebi Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
Writ Petition No.9455/13 21.6.2013 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.4.2013 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Ist Additional District Judge Chhindwara, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.2/13, affirming the order dated 31.1.2012 (Annexure-P-5) passed by the trial Court whereby, her application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for issuing ad-interim injunction against the respondent no.1, has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view his arguments after perusing the record in the available circumstances on asking the petitioners counsel why the impugned suit was filed by the plaintiff by concealing the material facts, then how she was entitled to get interlocutory injunction from the Court in view of the principle that the person, who does not c...
Shyam Manohar Asthana Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No.12372/2006 (S) Shyam Manohar Asthana Vs. State of MP and another Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri A.K. Pathak, advocate. For the respondents : Shri S.M. Lal, G.A.. ORDER (20.06.2013) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.05.2006 by which the respondents have imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner who was a Range Officer in the Forest Department, with retrospective effect from 31.01.1993.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner was working in the Forest Department as Range Officer. While in service, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuance of a charge sheet dated 20.01.1986 and he was placed under suspension. The order of suspension was quashed by this court in W.P. No.1444/86 decided on 04.07.1987. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the...
Mukesh Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
1 W.P No.9264/2009 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.9264/2009 PETITIONER : MUKESH CHOUHAN Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri J.A. Shah, Advocate. For respondent nos.1 to 3 : Shri S. M. Lal, Govt. Advocate. For respondent no.4 : Shri Abhishek Arzaria, Advocate For respondent no.5. : Shri R. K. Thakur, Advocate. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. ORDER (20/06/2013) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the Collector, Sagar dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the resolution dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Gram Panchayat Saaji, Tehsil Banda, District Sagar, proposing appointment of respondent no.5 as Panchayat Karmi of the said Gram Panchayat.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that Gram Panchayat Saaji issued an advertisem...
Goverdhan Prasad Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
1 W.P.No.9023/13. Writ Petition No.9023/2013. 17.6.2013 . Ms.Nirmala Raikwar, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for following relief : (i) A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued commanding the respondent No.2 and 4 to grant Nazul Land Patta of Block No.8 Plot No.3/1 area 25x50=1250 sq. ft. and mutation of the land for petitioner favour of the petition the respondent No.2 and 4 to granted Nazul land allotted to the patta and mutation of this land to the petitioner. (ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued commanding the respondent No.2 and 4 to give all consequential benefits payments etc.with retrospective effect. (iii) The relevant record may kindly be called for reference and perusal. (iv) Any other appropriate writ or direction may also kindly be issued if warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner's counse...
Smt. Mithlesh Bai Vs. Sunil Kumar Rathore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
1 Writ Petition No.9670/13. 20.6.2013 . Shri Pramod Thakre, learned counsel for the PetitioneRs.Heard. The petitioneRs.claimants have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2013 passed by 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing their application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the concerning part of the income of the deceased from Rs.20,000/- p.m.to Rs.3,000/- p.m.In the couRs.of the argument on admission in response of query of the Court instead to argue further the petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to challenge the impugned order on the grounds stated in the petition subject to final award of the Tribunal on arising the occasion in duly constituted appeal/ revision under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act with further prayer for appropriate direction to the Tribunal that while considering the matter finally, if any submission is made on behalf of the petitioners t...
Deepa Advertising Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
1 W.P. No. 1151 Of 2011 20.6.2013 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents despite of repeated calls. Heard. Challenge is to an order dated 21.10.2010 and 9.11.2010. Whereas by order dated 21.10.2010 an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the demand preferred by the petitioner against the demand raised in lieu of advertisement fee has been dismissed. The letter dated 9.11.2010 is a demand notice issued after dismissal of appeal. Facts giving rise to the dispute briefly are that in pursuance to NIT dated 18.4.2006 the petitioner was awarded the contract for erection of hording on major road, crossings and roof of private buildings at three different places (areas), viz., Bus Stand, Ranjhi and Adhartar (Group Nos. 6, 9 and 18 respectively) by respondent Jabalpur Municipal Corporation (hereinafter shall be referred to as Corporation). An agreement on 9.5.2007 was entered into betwee...
Smt. Sunita Singh Vs. M.P. Rural Road Development
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
W.P.No.9388/2013 Smt. Sunita Singh vs M.P.Rural Road Development and others 20/06/2013 Shri P.K.Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vipin Mishra, Advocate for the respondents. Looking to the controveRs.involved in this case, with the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. Facts of the case are that petitioner's husband Shri V.P.Singh entered into various contracts with the respondents for construction of rural roads. Shri V.P.Singh completed most of the works within schedule period, but on 06.07.2011 Shri V.P.Singh died and after his death, the petitioner herein had requested that she is not in a position to continue with the remaining contract works due to death of her husband. The respondents had accepted the prayer of the petitioner and vide orders dated 14/02/2012 and 03/02/2012 directed for the payment of remaining amount and also refund of security deposit to the petitioner in respect of different contracts entered into by her husband with the respondents. Thereaf...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »