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.
Umesh Chandra Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Local Self Depart ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
1 W.P.No.17076/2012 Umesh Chandra Gupta State of M.P.& others 18.6.2013 None for petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy.A.G.for respondents No.1 to 3, 3 on advance notice. We have perused the record. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents No.5 to 9 have encroached on the Government land bearing Survey no.631 area 0.31 acre situated at Baikunthpur, District Rewa. It is stated that the aforesaid land is being used by the villagers for religious purposes. Apart from this, a Dharamshala has also been constructed on the said land. The Municipal Council, Baikunthpur also issued a notice under Section 223 of the M.P.Municipalities Act, 1961 but without any effect. It is submitted in the petition that the public land deserves to be got vacated for religious purposes. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy.A.G.submitted that the respondent No.3 Collector, Rewa can look into the matter and for this purpose, petitioner may submit a representation to the Collector, Rewa for ventilatio...
Smt.Archana Tripathi Vs. Chandrakant Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.First Appeal No.212/2007 Smt.Archana Tripathi VERSUS Chandrakant Tripathi --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri U.S.Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Luvkush Mishra, Advocate for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 18th day of June, 2013) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa in Hindu Maintenance case No.3/2005, whereby the application of the appellant under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'The Act') was dismissed.2. It is admitted that the appellant is wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 1985 and from marriage since the year 1998, the appellant...
Jaswant Singh [Deceased] Thr. Lrs Laxmi Bai Vs. Azad Singh [Deceased] ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Writ Petition No.10086/13 17.6.2013 Shri Bramhadatt Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the respondent no.13. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 5.2.2013, passed by the Board of Revenue Gwalior, in Revenue Revision No.643/PBR/06 (Annexure-P-9).affirming the order dated 6.2.2006, passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal & Hoshangabad Divisions in case No.523/Appeal/2003-2004(Annexure-P-7) affirming, the order dated 23.8.2004 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisen in Case No.13/Appeal/2003-4 (Annexure-P-6) affirming the order dated 8.12.2003, passed by Naib Tahsildar, Tappa Sanchi District Raisen in Revenue case Nos.6, 7 and 20/A- 27/2001-2002 (Annexure-P-5) whereby the application filed by the predecessor in title of respondent no.1(a) and 1(b) under Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was allowed and pu...
Jakir HussaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1...W.P.No.9192 of 2013 Jakir Hussain State of M.P.& others 17.06.2013 Shri Suyash Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumresh Pathak, learned Dy. A.G.for the respondents. The petitioner has sought following:- 1. Direct the respondents to revoke the contract of the petitioner, 2. Or direct the respondent to refer the matter before the Arbitrator and to decide the dispute at the earliest, 3. Any other order or direction which this Hon. Court may deem fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed together with cost of the petition. The petitioner was awarded works contract dated 14.1.2011 for the the construction of Gadhore to Pondi road, length 13.22 k.m.Though the work was commenced by the petitioner but because of the not grant of clearance of the Forest Department, the petitioner could not complete the work and moved an application to the respondent No.4 for cancellation of the contract in the light of the Clause 14 of the Agreement. The ap...
Shiv Kumar Tiwari Vs. Bharat Scout and Guide, Mp
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P.No.9037/2013 17.06.2013 Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Gulab Patel, learned counsel for the respondent on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. Though the petitioner has raised several issues in the petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has filed an appeal before the appellate committee on 28.01.2013 against the order of punishment of dismissal dated 12.01.2013 which is pending before the appellate authority and has not been decided till date and therefore, the appellate authority be directed to consider and decide the same. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on advance copy submits that in case the appeal has not been decided, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the respondent without entering into the merits of the case or making any comments on the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed by t...
Prashant Kumar Manjul Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P.No.20112/2011 17/06/2013 Smt. D.K.Bohrey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/University. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that while considering the case of the petitioner and when the impugned order Annexure-P3 dated 4.4.2011 was passed by the standing committee of the University, reference was made to some list circulated by the University Grants Commission, wherein institutes recognized for imparting education and courses under the 10+2 system of Education were indicated. In the proceedings of the standing committee held on 4.4.2011 as contained in Annexure-P3, it is seen that the said list was referred to, however, the list has not been filed. Learned counsel for the University Shri Purushaindra Kaurav is directed to produce the list referred to in the order passed by the standing committee on 4.4.2011. List the matter for orders in the next week. (Rajendra Menon) (A.K.Sha...
Ved Prakash Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.328/2013 17.06.2013 Shri Vinay Gautam, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Heard on I.A.No.4935/2012, application for condonation of delay. There is delay of 39 days in filing this appeal Considering the reasons stated in the application and the period of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A.No.4935/2012 is allowed. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 23.11.2012, in W.P.No.19394/2012(S) by which the second petition filed against the transfer order of the appellant from Gram Panchcyat Tiggitola to Gram Panchayat Pandarwani was dismissed. In the fiRs.round of litigation, the writ court directed the appellant to file a representation against the transfer order but the said representation was rejected so a second writ petition was filed before the writ court challenging the transfer order. The learned Single Judge considered the matter at length and found that the transf...
Mohd. Salim Raien Vs. Dr. Khaleel Mohd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 Writ Petition No.9200/13. 17.6.2013 . Shri D.R.Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the PetitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. Petitioners have filed this petitioner 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of some condition of the order dated 29.4.2013 passed by the District Judge, Panna in Civil Appeal No.12-A/13, where by the operation and execution of the impugned decree passed by the trial Court has been stayed subject to furnishing the surety of rupees one lack. Having heard the counsel after perusing the averments of the petition, I am of the considered view that the appellate Court while passing the impugned order has imposed the condition of furnishing the surety of heavy amount, as such for grant of stay against eviction decree, the appellant Court could have passed some reasonable order to furnish the surety with imposition of condition to deposit the decreetal sum of the trial Court including the arrears of rent and monthly rent till disposal of the appeal. In ...
Shahzadai Qureshi Vs. Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P.No.16805/2012 17.06.2013 Shri A. Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri T. Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief of revaluation of her answer sheets of the Samvida Shala Shikshak (Grade-I) Eligibility Test-2011. It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has undertaken and participated in the Samvida Shala Shikshak (Grade-I) Eligibility Test-2011 as she possessed all the necessary requisite qualifications for doing so. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner was declared failed as she obtained 73.01% marks whereas the maximum qualifying marks were 75%. It is submitted that the petitioner scrutinized her answer sheets and model answer and felt that she was entitled to 90% marks and accordingly she prayed for revaluation of her answer sheet on 25.01.2012, however, the respondent again declared her failed by issuing a revised revaluation on 31.07...
Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P.No.9971 o17. 06.2013 Shri N.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.In the couRs.of arguments on admission in the available circumstances, on asking the petitioneRs.counsel that in view of availability of alternate remedy of filing the civil revision under Section 115 of CPC against the impugned order, how this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could be entertained by this court, on which petitioneRs.counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC challenging the impugned order of the appellate court whereby the order of the trial court convicting the petitioners under Order 39, Rule 2-A of CPC has been affirmed. On consideration by allowing the prayer of the petitioneRs.counsel, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to file aforesaid civil revision. However in the aforesaid circumstances,...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »