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.
K.K. Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
W.P.No.10270/2013 (K.K.Chaturvedi ...Vs...State of .P.and otheRs.17-06-2013 Heard Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7-6-2013 passed by the respondent No.3 by which the petitioner, who is an Assistant Grade-I, and working in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Tikamgarh, has been suspended in exercise of powers under the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been made a escape goat and in fact he is not responsible for the alleged misconduct on the basis of which he has been suspended and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the recored, it is observed that as the petitioner has already moved the competent authority for revocation of ...
Mohd. Mubeen Shagil Vs. Dr. Smt. Humera Mateen
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
F.A.No.215/2011 17/6/2013: Shri Masood Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Dinesh Koushal, learned counsel for respondent. Considering the fact that the appeal has already been executed operation of the judgment and decree in question shall remain stayed subject to the condition that the appellant shall maintain status quo with regard to the property in question and shall not create any third party interest on the same. In the meanwhile, appellant shall also furnish security to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with regard to repayment of amount in case of failure of this appeal. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) (Anil Sharma) Judge Judge mrs.mishra...
Smt.Shashi Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Writ Petition No.5550/08 17.6.2013 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. On behalf of petitioners this writ petition is preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuing a appropriate writ to declare the notification (Annexure-P-1) and the notice Annexure-P-2, as null and void with a further prayer to direct the respondents not to acquire the land of petitioners described in the petition. It is undisputed fact that with respect of the land stated in the petition, the State of M.P., has issued the notification dated 15.1.2008, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Annexure-P-1) and subsequent to that, the notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act collectively, for taking over the possession of the land of the petitioneRs.was also given and both the notifications are under challenge in this petition. In the couRs.of arguments I am a...
Ashok Vs. Smt. Hirabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
Writ Petition No.10087/13 17.6.2013 Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2013, passed by IInd Civil Judge Class-II Burhanpur in Civil Suit No.94-A/2012 whereby, his application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for calling the report with respect of the disputed place through Commissioner, has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel at length, on asking the petitioners counsel regarding present status of the suit on which, he apprised me that the evidence on the framed issues is yet to be recorded. I am of the considered view that at the initial stage of the Civil Suit when the party has to adduce their respective evidence in the matter, any of the party could not be permitted to use the Court process as an Agency to collect the evidence for such party. So, in such premises, the impugne...
M.P.State Electricity Board Vs. Lal Bihari Dwivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.359/2013 17.06.2013 Shri Anup Nair, Advocate for the appellants. Shri R.K.Verma, Advocate for the respondents. I.A.No.5543/2013 seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this appeal is within time and filing of this application is misconceived so he may be permitted to withdraw this application. Prayer is not opposed, hence the same is allowed. This application is dismissed as withdrawn. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 12.2.2013 in W.P.No.3926/2002 by which the learned Single Judge directed for extension of benefit of higher pay-scale to the respondents on completion of 13 years of service while taking into consideration the stipulation contained in paragraph 2(ii) of the order dated 4.11.1995 ignoring the date of issuance of order of re-designation. This order has been assailed mainly on the ground that as per the circular dated 4.11.1995, annexure R/2, filed a...
Ashok Kumar Kushram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1...W.P.No.8963 of 2013 Ashok Kumar Kushram State of M.P.& ORS.17.06.2013 Shri Sanjay Singh, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A.for the respondents. The petitioner sought following reliefs:- 1. This Hon. Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 & 2 to take appropriate action against the Respondent No.3 & 4 on the basis of enquiry conducted by the Janpad Panchayat Bichhiya, district Mandla in the interest of Justice.2. Any other relief or reliefs, order or ordeRs.direction or directions which this Hon. Court deems fit and proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and other villagers had made a complaint to the Collector, Mandla in respect of serious irregularities and illegalities committed by the Sarpanch and the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Khalodi district Mandla. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that though report Annexure P-2 dated 7.5.2008 was submitted by Shri U....
Ravindra Khiyani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3884/2013 17.6.2013 Shri Shivendra Pandey, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri P.K.Chourasia, PL for respondent No.1/State. Shri S.B.Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners have filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C.for quashing the proceedings of R.T.No.8809/2007 pending before JMFC, Bhopal under sections 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioneRs.The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized on 9.7.2003. Thereafter, due to some family disputes, respondent No.2 lodged an FIR (P-2) against the petitioner and the Police has registered the offence under Section 498-A and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioneRs.which is pending before JMFC, Bhopal as R.T.No.8809/2007. Learned counsel f...
Khilan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 W.P.No.9587/2013, 17.6.2013 . Shri Mahendra Pateria, learned counsel for the PetitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ directing the authorities of the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners for two wells, which have been covered by the respondents while constructing the main road. In the couRs.of the arguments, I am apprised by the petitioneRs.counsel that with respect of the dispute raised in this petition, a representation of the petitioner (Ann. P.13) is still pending for adjudication in the office of the respondents' authorities. In the available circumstances, instead to decide this petition on merits, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents' authorities to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner (Ann. P.13) by speaking order within sixty days from the date o...
Harishankar Vs. Vijay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-17-2013
1 W.P.No.9266/2013, 17.6.2013 . Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate direction to the respondent No.6, Tahsildar to decide the Revenue Case No.5- A/20/09-10 on some early date on which the final argument was heard on 7.5.2012. Having heard the counsel in the available circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of this matter this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.6 Tahsildar to decide the aforesaid Revenue case of the petitioner within one month from the date of filing the certified copy of this order in the office of such authorities by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to submit the copy of this order in the office of such authorities within fifteen days from today. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the co...
Mohammad Idris Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-2013
1 Writ Petition No.9081/13. 17.6.2013 . Shri B.K.Bais, learned counsel for the Petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate direction to decide the revenue case on some early date within time bound schedule. It is apparent fact on record that in entire petition the particulars and the number of such revenue case, which is said to be pending before the Tahsildar has not been stated in any manner. In the lack of such material particulars this petition could not be entertained for any purpose. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh petition in this regard by mentioning all necessary particulars in the same.C.C. as per rules. (U. C.Maheshwari) Judge k...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »