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.
Jagdish Raikawar Vs. Matashyoudog Sahakari Samiti Khop Distt. Chhatarp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
---1--- W.A.No.266/2013 19.6.2013 Shri Aseem Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri P. Dharmadhikari, learned G.A.for respondents/State. This appeal is directed against order dated 5.3.2013 in W.P.No.9608/2012 by which the writ petition preferred by Respondent No.1 was allowed, the orders passed by the Commissioner and the State Minister were quashed. The short contention of the appellant before this Court is that in fact the reservoir is in two parts and the Commissioner and State Minister have rightly directed for grant of lease of the said reservoir to the appellant and Respondent No.1. Apart from this, there was only one application of Respondent No.1 which could not have allowed by the authorities. From the perusal of the impugned order we find that the learned Single Judge considered the matter in proper perspective. Paragraph No.5 of the return filed by the State has been specifically quoted in paragraph No.4 of the ...
Alok Kumar Dikshit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.10311 of 2013 Anil Kumar Dikshit Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors For Petitioner : Shri Ramashanker Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents/ : Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Panel Lawyer. State ORDER (Oral) (19.06.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, (the same appears to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) being aggrieved by the order dated 12.2.2013 (Annexure-P-7) passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal not A 3027-I/2012, whereby, his second appeal filed under Section 44(2) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (in short the Code) against the order dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure-P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division in case No.89/A-73/2009-10, without examining the merits of the matter, only by rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed for condoning the delay in filing such appeal, h...
A.R.Manu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
W.A.No.430/2013 A.R.Manu vs The State of M.P.and others 19/06/2013 Shri P.N.Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Kumresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant, who was earlier posted at Bhopal was transferred to Harda and from Harda by internal arrangement, she was posted to Timarnee and at present she is working at Timarnee. It is also submitted that the appellant is a heart patient. Earlier she has undergone treatment of angioplasty and is required regular checkup and it is not possible at Timarnee. It is submitted that to sort out the aforesaid problem, the appellant has submitted a representation to respondent No.2, which has not been considered and for ventilation of this grievance to a limited extent that her representation be considered by respondent No.2, the writ petition was filed, but it has been dismissed. It is submitted by Shri Dubey that the representation of the appellant is pendi...
Smt. Akila Sultan Vs. Ratanlal Koshari (D) Lrs. Shri Arvind Kothari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.First Appeal No.937/2012 Smt.Akila Sultan & others VERSUS Ratanlal Kothari (Dead) through LRs and others --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Hemant Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Ms.Aparna Vij, Advocate for the respondent No.3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 26th day of June, 2013) The appellants have preferred the present first appeal against the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal in civil suit No.10- A/2012, whereby the suit was dismissed with the direction that it was not maintainable.2. The facts of the case, in short, is that, one Ratanlal Kothari had prosecuted a civil suit for recovery of some amount against Matin Mohd. A money decree of Rs.99,994/- was passed. In the meantime, Ratanlal Kothari as well as Matin Mohd. had expir...
Paramjeet Singh Bedi Vs. Smt. Balla Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
W.P.10303 o19. 6.2013 Shri Ashish Shroti, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for respondent No.2 and 3. Petitioner, the auction purchaser of some property has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing the writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to immediately proceed with the application filed by the petitioner under section 31 of the M.P.Sahakari Krishi & Gramind Vikas Bank Act, 1999 and take immediate steps in this regard in accordance with law. It is apparent from the copy of the aforesaid application filed under section 31 of the said Act Annex.P/2 that the same is pending. Having heard the counsel, in the available circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of respondent No.3 to take an endeavor to expedite the hearing of the aforesaid application (Annx.P/2) of the petitioner filed under section 31 of the above mentioned Act and conclude such proceedings in accordance with law wit...
Prem Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
W.A.No.1227/2011 (Prem Kumar Mishra versus The State of M.P.& Ors.) 19.06.2013 Shri Raghuvansh Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12-10-2011 passed in W.P.No.13841/2011 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order of his transfer was dismissed, however, with the liberty to the appellant to represent before the competent authority and seek indulgence of the authority. Learned counsel for the appellant though tried to assail the aforesaid order on the ground that only to accommodate the respondent No.5 the appellant was transferred, but we are not satisfied with the aforesaid contention. The writ petition was dismissed on 12-10-2011 with the aforesaid liberty and a period of near about 1 years have elapsed since then. In the meantime, the appellant must have joined at the transferred place. In view of the aforesaid cir...
Harenda Singh Varethia Vs. Smt. Jyoti Varethia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Civil Revision No.343/2012 Civil Revision No.343/2012 19.6.2013 Shri R.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.P.Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 5.9.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in MJ.No.3/2012, whereby the application of the respondent under order 9 rule 13 of CPC was accepted. In the present case, the applicant has moved an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Notices were issued to the respondent from time to time. On 11.4.2011, the respondent was declared ex-parte and the application was decreed. The respondent moved an application under order 9 rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex- parte decree and after recording evidence and hearing both the parties, the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal has accepted the application under order 9 rule 13 of CPC and set aside the ex-parte decree passed under section 13 of th...
Surendra Kumar Gupta @ Munna Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Writ Petition No.9545/2013 19.06.2013 Shri S.D.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Laleet Joglekar, learned PL for respondent Nos.1 to 4. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- (1) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction command the respondents/concerned authorities to make entry in the revenue records as per order of the Tahsildar, (Ann. P-4) and make the payment to the petitioner accordingly, in the interest of justice. (2) To command the respondents recover the compensation amount from respondent Nos.5 to 9 and initiate proceedings against them. (3) To direct the respondents to produce the entire records pertaining to the present controveRs.for kind perusal. (4) Any other relief or direction which deems fit may also be granted to the petitioner. Having heard the counsel in the available circumstances, instead to admit or issue any notice of this petition to the respondents, the same is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of re...
Smt. Kavita Choubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
W.P.No.10174 / 2013 (Smt. Kavita Choubey ---Vs.---State of M.P.& otheRs.19-06-2013 Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for relief of regularization on the post of Assistant Grade-III. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working on daily wage basis on the post of Section Writer. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without approaching the respondent/authorities for mitigation of his grievance. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for liberty to approach the concerned authority. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for mitigation of his grievance. With the aforesaid liberty the petition filed by the petitioner ...
Rajiv Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Seth
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
F.A.No.790/2012 F.A.No.790/2012 25.6.2013 Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Smt. Sarita Chourasiya, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The trial Court i.e.Third Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in civil matter No.12-A/2011, vide order dated 30.4.2012 had directed that the girl child Radha be given in the custody of the respondent No.4 Manot Shrivastava. It is apparent that neither the appellants, not the respondent No.4 are relatives to the girl child. Vide order dated 13.12.2012, it is apparent that the respondent No.4 has shown his reluctance to take the custody of the child and therefore, there is no claimant of the child except the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants informs that in compliance to the order dated 13.12.2012, custody of the child is taken by the appellants and child is with them. Under such circumstances, there is no ...