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.
Dileep Tiwari Vs. Rani Durgawati University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
W.P.No.7061/13 (s) 18/06/13 Shri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioners were students of B.A.L.L.B. (Hons) 5 years integrated couRs.and were pursuing their studies in R.D.V.V.They appeared in the 1st Semester Examination and it is stated that in some of the subjects, petitioners have received less marks. Inter alia contending that their claim for revaluation of certain answer sheets and retotalling of answer sheets have not been done in accordance with the requirement of revised ordinance No.92 applicable to R.D.V.V.Annexure P-2 and the Registrar of the University as per Clause 6 of the said ordinance, this writ petition is filed. Shri Shrivastava emphasized that petitioners have not brought on record any material to show that any application for revaluation is submitted and any fees for revaluation is paid. Accordingly, respondents orally deny the averments made by learned counse...
Dr. Prahlad Saini Vs. Chairman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
1 W.P. No. 12286 Of 2009 18.6.2013 Shri B.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jain, 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 Senior MIG 187 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. 3. Whereon after following due procedure of drawing the lottery the petitioner was found entitled for the allotment of the house in question; whereupon he was asked to deposit Rs.60,000/. Further deposits were also made by the petitioner in furtherance t...
Jagdish Prsada Asati Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
W.A.No.624/2009 Jagdish Prasad Asati & others vs The State of M.P.and others 18/06/2013 None for the appellants. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.7170/2007(S).by which, writ petition preferred by the appellants was allowed in part and the recovery against the petitioners/appellants in respect of grant of special pay under Rule 10(2) of the Pay Revision Rules, 1998 @ Rs.250/- was quashed in the light of the judgment in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and otheRs.1995 Supp(1) SCC 18.while the grievance of the appellants before the writ Court was that vide order dated 15.05.2007, Annexure P/14, benefit of FiRs.and Second Kramonnati (Time Bound Promotion Scheme) was wrongly withdrawn. The grievances of the appellants in this appeal is that the aforesaid contention, which was crux of the case was not considered by the writ Court. From the perusal of...
The State of M.P. Vs. Nathuram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.155 OF 199.APPELLANT: State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh (MP) Versus RESPONDENT: Nathuram S/o Butte Ahirwar, aged 30 years, R/o Village Badha, P.S. Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh (MP) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant/State : Ms. Savita Choudhary, Panel Lawyer For the Respondent : Shri R.K. Khare, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing : . .2013 Date of judgment :18. 06.2013 (JUDGMENT) By means of filing the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State has assailed the order of acquittal passed by the learned First Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh (MP) in Criminal Case No.945/93 decided on 12.08.1997.2. By the judgment under challenge, learned tria...
Vayu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
Writ Petition No.10209/13 18.6.2013 Shri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the respondent. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:- (i) This Honble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents NO.1 to adjudicate the matter by amending the order Annexure-P-1 to the extent of relief made in para 2 & 3 as per representation Annexure-P-2 within specific time by issuing an appropriate writ order and direction. (ii) This Honble Court may kindly pleased issue any other writ, directions, orders which this Honble Court may deems fit and proper, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. This Honble Court may kindly pleased to award cost of this petition to him. In the couRs.of arguments in view of the impugned order dated 2.4.2013(Annexure-P-1) passed by the Secretary revenue Department, State of M.P., in case no.F 16-48/2012/sat-2A, passed in ...
North Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
1 W.P. No. 12841 Of 2008 18.6.2013 Shri B.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jin, 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. 20 situated at Dhanvantari Nagar, Jabalpur. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to advertisement dated 12.4.2004 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. 17. 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 5.1.2008, he was asked to deposit Rs.87,000/. Further deposits were also made by the petitioner ...
Ramvichar Vishwakarma Vs. Ranjit Vishwakarma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
1 Writ Petition No.4035/13. 18.6.2013. Shri A.P.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Gaharwar, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 7, 9 to 10 and 15 to 16. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the respondent No.14/ State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II Waidhan District Singroli in C.S.No.157-A/2009 whereby his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed in part. Having heard the counsel of the petitioner at length keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through averments of the petition and the papers placed on record as well as the impugned order whereby some part of the amendment application (Ann. P.2) was allowed and for remaining part the same has been dismissed. After perusing the averments of the plaint (Ann. P.1).I am of the considered view that ...
Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
Writ Petition No.10193/13 18.6.2013 Shri U.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for respondent no.5 on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ directing the respondents not to carry out the proceedings for appointment on the post of Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Distributor at Manpur District Umaria, till decision of the appeal and the enquiry pending at the instance of the petitioner before the respondents no.4 & 5. It appears from the averments of the petition and the annexers that on earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed the writ petition No.7907/12, with respect of the dispute raised in the present petition, the same was disposed of vide order dated 18.5.2012 (Annexure-P-2) by extending the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee of the Company situated in the Head Quarter. Subseq...
Sanjay Kumar Gujare Vs. Smt. Shaili Gujare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
Writ Petition No.10213/13 18.6.2013 Shri Sandeep Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 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 18.5.2013, passed by Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bhopal, in MJ.No.58/12, whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, for interim custody of his two children aged 12 years and 8 years namely Deepankita and Romir, the respondent has been directed to handover the custody of such child to the respondent their mother and wife of petitioner. The aforesaid order has been passed ex-parte because after leaving some letter regarding death of some person in the trial Court on the date of hearing the aforesaid application, the petitioner has gone by leaving the Court. In the couRs.of arguments on admission, on asking the ...
Western Coalfields Ltd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
W.P.10304 o18. 6.2013 Shri Greeshm Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner, the Public Enterprise of Union of India, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 5.6.2013 (Annex.P/1) passed by respondent No.2 in Case not Khanij/1/13-708 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay arrears of royalty tax along with interest as per the provision. In the couRs.of arguments, I have found the representations and the letter of the petitioner Annex.P/7 Annex.P/8 are still pending in the office of respondent No.2 for adjudication. So, in such premises, at this stage instead to consider this matter on merits or issue any notice to the other side, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representations and letter of the petitioner Annex.P/7 and P/8 with speaking order by...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »