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.
Dr. Smt. Ila Prasanna Salshingikar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.355/2013 17.06.2013 Shri Dharmendra Soni, Advocate for the appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 25.2.2013 in W.P.No.6239/2006(S).Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that except promotion, other reliefs which were prayed before the writ court, have not been considered. After arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant seeks liberty of this Court to withdraw this appeal and to seek review of the order passed by the writ court. Prayer is allowed. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty, as prayed. No order as to cost. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge HS...
Smt. Deoki Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
---1--- W.A.No.382/2013 17.6.2013 Shri Vijay Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.3.2013 in W.P.No.7144/2012 by which learned Single Judge refused to vacate ad interim prayer, rejected the application filed by the appellant for vacation of ad interim writ dated 14.5.2013. This order has been assailed mainly on the ground that respondent No.7 has no locus to file writ petition and to challenge the order of the Commissioner before the writ Court and the learned Single Judge erred in directing stay of the order passed by the Commissioner. Facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Aganwadi worker. A complaint was made against her and ultimately she was removed by a resolution of Gram Panchayat dated 5.2.2008 and Respondent No.7 is the signatory of the said resolution in the capacity of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Itma, Dubari. Thereafter the Project Officer, Nagod, D...
Sangram Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 Writ Petition No.362/13. 17.6.2013 . Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Shri S.K.Dwivedi, learned G.A.for the respondent/ State. Petitioner/ Licensee of some Mines has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ directing the respondent to issue the transit pass to the petitioner as per terms and conditions of the quarry lease agreement (Ann. P.1).in compliance of the provision of Rule 30 (14) of M.P.Minot Mineral Rules, 1996 and Rule 5 (2) of the M.P.Minerals (Prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage).Rules, 2006. Subsequent to filing this petition vide order dated 7.2.2013, the following interim order was passed : Keeping in view the aforesaid, as an interim measure it is directed that the sand extracted by the petitioner laying in the mining area be permitted to be transported subject to paying royalty tax as per rules. It is apparent from the aforesaid agreement (Ann. P.1) that alleged lease ...
Arungiri Goswami Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 M.C.C.No.499/2013 17.06.2013 Shri H.K.Upadhyaya, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4. This is an application for restoration of W.P.No.18541/2012 which was dismissed because of non- compliance of peremptory order dated 3.12.2012 by which the petitioners were directed to make the default good within a period of 2 weeks failing which the petition itself was directed to be dismissed without further reference to the Bench. The default which was pointed out by the office in W.P.No.18541/2012 was in respect of not payment of deficit court fees of Rs.3,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the default could not be made good within the aforesaid period. However, the petitioners herein are ready to make payment of deficit court fees within a period of 2 days from today. This application is barred by limitation so the applicants have filed another application, I.A.No.4154/2013 seeking condonation of delay in f...
Radhedas Vs. District Collector the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P.No.10127/13 17.06.2013 Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the State in accordance with the rules for mitigation of his grievance. The petitioner is also granted liberty to move the appropriate authority of the State for condoning the delay along with the revision and in case the petitioner does so, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same sympathetically keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had filed the writ petition before this court. With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of as withdrawn. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Dongar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P.No.9048/2013 17.06.2013 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Shahdol, Division Shahdol whereby the application filed by the petitioner for readmission of his appeal against his removal from the post of Secretary has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had himself withdrawn the appeal by stating that he had been reinstated as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Kuddi and therefore nothing survives for adjudication. The Commissioner in the impugned order has considered the aforesaid aspects as well the fact that there is no change in the circumstances warranting readmission of appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The petitioner has himself stated in the petition that he was taken back in service as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Kuddi during the pendency of the appeal b...
Mohammad Shakeel Khan Vs. Mohd. Mujaffar Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Writ Petition No.5687/2013 17.06.2013 Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 6. None for respondent no.3, although served. Notice issued to respondent No.4 is received back unserved. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner- plaintiff has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2013, passed by the Additional Judge, to the Court of Ist Civil Judge, Class-II, Burhanpur in Civil Suit No.16-A/2011 whereby allowing the applications of the respondents filed under Section 10 of CPC in view of pendency of Civil Suit No.1-A/12 at the instance of respondents in the court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Burhanpur further trial of the petitioner's suit was stayed. After hearing both the parties, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record alongwith the imputed order, it appears that the petitioner herein is claiming the property, including the described property by the respond...
Vargeese V.M. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Writ Petition No.8844 / 2013 (Vargis V.M...Vs...State of MP & otheRs.17-06-2013 Heard Shri Ajay Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing the letter dated 17-4-2013 issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been informed that as he has deliberately remained absent from duty on the pretext of health reasons without producing any medical certificates from the competent doctors in spite of repeated remindeRs.therefore, action against him would be taken under the provisions of the service rules in case he fails to produce medical certificates from the Board and that the authority would also consider initiation of the proceedings for removing him from service. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the authority i.e.the Regional Manager, who has issued the letter dated 17-4-2013 is not competent to dismiss the petitioner from service and, therefore, the impugned o...
Smt. Rani Devi Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
---1--- W.A.No.345/2013 17.6.2013 Shri S.A.Wakil, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.3.2013 in W.P.No.9755/2012 by which learned Single Judge considering the application I.A.No.14500/2012, an application for vacating at interim writ, found that on 4.7.2012 when ad interim writ was issued, Respondent No.5 Smt. Asha Mishra had already joined on the post of Aganwadi Worker and she was working. While by order dated 4.7.2012, the writ Court directed continuation of the services of the appellant herein. On the aforesaid ground, the writ Court found that the application deserves to be allowed and accordingly ad interim writ issued earlier, in the matter, was vacated. From perusal of the record we find that the writ petition was filed on 30.6.2012 before the writ Court and on 4.7.2012 the writ Court passed ad interim writ directing that the operation of the impugned order dated...
Smt. Dipa Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 Writ Petition No.21582/12. 17.6.2013 . Shri D.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the PetitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the respondent No.1 to 5, on advance copy. The petitioners No.1 and 2 being legal representatives of Shyam Lal Maravi one of the legal representatives of Rooplal and petitioner No.3 another legal representative of said Roop Lal have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.7.2012 (Ann. P.15) passed by the Commissioner (Revenue).Jabalpur affirming the order dated 27.5.2008 (Ann. P.11) passed by the Collector, affirming the orders dated 13.8.2007 to 14.11.2007 (Ann. P.8) passed by Nazul Officer/ S.D.O.affirming the order dated 24.7.2004 (Ann. P.4) passed by Tahsildar whereby on the basis of sale deed dated 24.3.2004 (Ann. P.3).executed by aforesaid Shyamlal in his life time without consent of the petitioners the family membeRs.in favour of the respondent No.6 and 7, the mutation proceeding of...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »