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.
Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Barkatullah University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
W.P.No.10282/2013 19/06/2013 Shri Praveen Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners who were students of the B.P.Ed. Courses and were pursuing studies from National Post Graduate Mahavidyalaya, Bhopal feel aggrieved of the action of the Respondent No.1/ University in not adding their practical marks in the mark-sheet issued in the year 2010-11. It is seen that for the same session in various other institutes for the couRs.in question, same error was committed by the University and the practical marks obtained by the student were not added in the original mark-sheet after declaration of the result. As a result, writ petitions were filed and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the W.P.No.2310/2012 vide order Annexure-P5 directing the respondents to include practical marks of the students in accordance with the communication made by the institute, declare the result afresh and issue fresh mark-sheets. Keeping in view the directions already issued by this Court vid...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Halim
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
F.A.No.26/2011 21.6.2013 Shri Sudesh Verma, G.A.for the State/appellants. Shri Kaustubh Singh, counsel for the respondent No.1. Heard on I.A.No.9016/2012, an application for urgent hearing. The appeal is filed in the year 2011, whereas so many old appeals are pending before this Court for consideration, therefore, the present appeal cannot be heard at preference. The respondent No.1 has also submitted that land in question is the only source of livelihood for him and he requires to collect funds for the marriage ceremony of his daughter. However, it is directed by the trial Court that the respondent No.1 is in possession of the land and therefore, there is no stay to get the livelihood to the respondent No.1 from that land. Under such circumstances, this is not a sufficient ground for early hearing of the appeal. Consequently, I.A.No.9016/2012 is hereby dismissed. Interim relief shall continue till the next date of hearing. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra...
Mp Oilfed Officers Association Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
W.P.No.16800/2011 18.06.2013 Shri Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri V.S.Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5. I.A.No.6409/2013 has been filed by the respondents for taking subsequent events on record and I.A.No.6410/2013 has been filed for extension of time to take a decision in terms of the direction issued by this Court on 22.03.2013. In fact this Court has examined the claim made by the petitioners and has reached to the conclusion that in terms of the Rules/Acts and in terms of earlier decision taken by the Cabinet of MinisteRs.appropriate orders were to be issued by the respondents after making policies. Such a fact was recorded in order sheet dated 14.12.2012 and an opportunity was granted to the respondents-State to make the policies. However, it was stated that in view of certain provisions made in the Act, the policies were not made by the State Government and thi...
The Union of India and ors. Vs. M/S Kohli Traders
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
1 M.C.C. No.1119/05 18/06/13 Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Seeking review/recall of an order passed by a Bench of this Court in M.A.No.1076/04 on 4/12/04, this application has been filed. Respondent M/s Kohli Traders filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal claiming a sum of ` 3,61,750/- on the ground of damages caused at the time of delivery of certain bags by the Railways. The Tribunal passed an award and granted a sum of ` 47,030/- along with interest @ 6 % to the respondent claimant. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal has been filed under Section 238 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act before this Court and the said appeal having been allowed and decided ex parte on 4/12/04, this application has been filed for recall/review by the Railway Administration mainly on the ground that the appeal was heard without proper notice to them and without granting them any opportunity to represent into the matter properly. It is pointed out by Shri G...
Diwakar Prasad Tiwari Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Proudyogik Vishwavidhyalay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
Diwakar Prasad Tiwari versus Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwa Vidyalaya & Another Writ Petition No ::3086. 18. 06.2013. Shri S.S.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for respondents. Challenging the award of less marks in the subject of Pharmaceutical Jurisprudence in the examination conducted in the year 2006, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was a student of Swami Vivekanand College of Pharmacy, Bhopal and was prosecuting a couRs.i.e.diploma in Pharmacy. The petitioner appeared in the final examination which was conducted in March-April 2006 and in the said examination, in the subject of Pharmaceutical Jurisprudence petitioner received two marks. Interalia contending that the marks received by the petitioner is on the lower side, his answer sheet have not been valued properly in the subject in question, a writ petition was filed before this Court being W.P.No.11494/2009 and a Division Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-1 ...
Balram Upadhyay Vs. Chairman M.P.Housing Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
1 W.P. No. 12262 Of 2009 18.6.2013 Shri B.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Samaiya, learned counsel for respondent Housing Board. With consent, matter is heard finally. Grievance raised by the petitioner is against the demand by respondent M.P. Housing Board in lieu of enhanced price for allotment of H.I.G No. 181 situated at Dhanvantari Nagar, Jabalpur. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to advertisement dated 12.4.2007 published in local daily newspaper for allotment of H.I.G constructed by M.P. Housing Board, the petitioner applied for the same and was given registration No. 1. Whereon after following due procedure of drawing the lottery the petitioner was found entitled for the allotment of the house in question; whereupon vide letter dated 21.11.2007, he was asked to deposit Rs.60,000/. Further deposits were also ...
Ramakant Ratner Vs. Gopal Prasad Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.7435 of 2011 Ramakant Ratner Vs. Gopal Prasad Sharma. Shri R.L. Ariha and Shri Ashok Choudhary :- Counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.K. Chaturvedi :- Counsel for the respondent. ORDER (Oral) 18/06/2013 U.C. MAHESHWARI, J.1. The petitioner- plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Pipariya in COS No.7-A/2009, whereby his application filed under Section 13 (6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (in short The Act.) for striking out the defence of the respondent- defendant on the grounds of eviction under the Act has been dismissed on the ground that the respondent has denied relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner in his written statement.2. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record alongwith the averments of the petition argued that the petitioner...
Lakhanlal Vs. Duragaprasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
1 Writ Petition No.10224/2013 18/06/2013 Shri Monesh Sahu learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 09/05/2013 passed by IV Civil Judge, Class-I, Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.41-A/2012 whereby the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce evidence has been closed. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record along with averments of the petition argued that the right to adduce evidence of the petitioner has been closed by the trial court under the wrong premises. In continuation he said that the petitioner/ plaintiff along with witnesses were present before such court on the date 09/05/2013 to adduce the evidence instead their deposition were not recorded and the impugned order was passed and right of the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce evidence wrongly closed. He also argued that in case this court c...
Smt. Dhapu Bai Vs. Dhasrath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
1 Writ Petition No.10221/2013 18/06/2013 Shri Atul Anand Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 17/05/2013 passed by III Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.496-A/2013 whereby the hearing on the application of the petitioners filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC has been deferred till disposal of the application of the respondent No.14 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC raising the question regarding proper valuation of the suit and the court fees on the plaint. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners and after perusing all the papers placed on record, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to consider and decide the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC within 15 days from the date of filing certified copy of this order in such court by th...
M.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Vineet Kumar Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
W.A.No.936/2009 M.P.State Co-operative Bank LTD.Vs Vineet Kumar Dubey and others 18/06/2013 Shri Ranveer Singh, Advocate for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.2818/2008, by which, writ petition preferred by the respondents for quashment of their termination orders was allowed and the respondents were directed to be reinstated along with all consequential benefits. The facts of the case are that the respondents were the permanent duly confirmed employees of the Bank and were working on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist Grade-II. Without serving any notice or extending an opportunity of hearing, even the procedure prescribed under the service Rules was not followed, their services were terminated merely on the basis of the recommendations of the Lokayukt, who had conducted some inquiry into allegation that appointment of the respondents was not in accordance with rules. The Lokayukt had made recommendations on 28.01.19...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »