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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Peoples General Hospital Ltd,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR M.A.I.T. No.27/2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal (M.P.) Versus M/s Peoples General Hospital Ltd., 6, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) I.T.A. No.89/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal (M.P.) Versus M/s Peoples General Hospital Pvt. Ltd., 6, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) I.T.A. No.90/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal (M.P.) Versus M/s Peoples General Hospital Pvt. Ltd., 6, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present: Hon'ble Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting Chief Justice. Hon'ble Shri Justice M.A. Siddiqui --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.S. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri A.P. Shrivastava, Shri Sumit Nema, Shri A.P. Shroti and Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocates for the respondent. ------------------------------------...
Rameshwar Patel Vs. Government of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
Writ Petition No.4776/2013 27.06.2013 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Heard. Petitioner has sought following relief: (i) To call for entire relevant record. (ii) To direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to recover the panel royalty from the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 according to Rule 53(5) of Mineral Rule, 1996. (iii) To direct the respondent No.2, to pay the royal penalty to Respondent No.3 from the pending bills or security deposit of Respondent Nos.5 to 7. (iv) To direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to recover the panel royalty with 18% interest from the date when the mineral was extracted. (v) To pass such any other order as deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. Any other relief together cost of the petition which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is tha...
Uma Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
W.P.No.11311/2012 Uma Sharma vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 27.06.2013 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Khatri learned counsel for respondent no.5. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.7.2012 by which the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa has entertained the review filed by respondent no.5 and stayed the order passed by him dated 15.5.2012 in case no.640/Appeal/2009-10 wherein directions were issued to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Anganwaadi Karyakarta. It is observed that in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the charge of the post of Anganwaadi Karyakarta has already been handed over to the petitioner. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall take up the issue regarding maintainability of the review petition as well as the merit of the case before the Commissioner who may be directed to decide the same. The learned counsel for the...
Sultan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 Writ Petition No.10923/13. 27.6.2013 . Shri Sanjiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ directing the authorities of the respondents not to interfere in his peaceful possession of the disputed land bearing survey No.36 area 1.813 hectare situated at Pushprajgarh District Anuppur. In the couRs.of the arguments on admission, in view of the papers placed on record according to which various disputed facts are involved in the matter which could not be adjudicated by this Court under writ jurisdiction, on making certain query from the petitioner's counsel, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file civil suit before the appropriate forum. Considering such prayer without expressing any opinion on merit of the matter, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with...
Chuttan Bai Vs. Yogesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
Writ Petition No.9513/2013 27.06.2013 Shri Sushil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. With the permission of the court, the counsel has corrected the description of the petitioners on the cause title of petition. Thereby he has replaced the plaintiffs. by mentioning the defendants.The same is certified accordingly. The counsel 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 20.4.2013 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Betul in Misc. Civil Appeal No.03/13, affirming the order dated 14.3.2013 passed by IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Betul in Civil Suit No.70-A/12, whereby allowing application of the respondents- plaintiff file under Rule 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by issuing ad interim injunction, the petitioners have been restrained to interfere in possession of the disputed land of respondents. Having heard the counsel ...
Ku. Smita Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 Writ Petition No.10618/2013. 27.6.2013 . Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the PetitioneRs.With permission of the Court he has corrected the description of the respondents in the cause title of the petition, thereby scoring out the State of Madhya Pradesh through Commissioner Municipal Corporation. he has stated Municial Corporation, through Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.The same is certified accordingly. 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 28.2.2013 (Ann. P.1) passed by 4th Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in C.S.No.72/09, whereby their application filed under Section295 (3) of Municipal Corporation Act 1956 for acceptance of proposed plan has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel at length, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record along with the impugned order. The trial Court has dismissed the aforesaid application of...
Jai Shanker Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
W.P.No.11128/2012 (Jai Shankar Verma versus State of MP and otheRs.27.06.2013 Shri Surendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned G.A.for the State. Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.07.2012 transferring the petitioner from the office of respondent No.5, Executive Engineer Water Resources, Department, Water Resources Zone No.1 Seoni, M.P.to the Office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Narmada Taapti Kachar, Indore, M.P.By the interim order dated 13.08.2012 this court had stayed the operation of the impugned order. The reply has been filed by the respondents. Looking to the aforesaid aspects as the impugned order of transfer has already been stayed as a consequence of which the impugned order has not been implemented, interest of justice would be met by disposing of the petition with a direction to the respondents not to implement the impugn...
Hargovind Laxminarayan Samaj Kalyan Samiti Vs. National Council for Te ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :15244. Of 2010 Hargovind Laxminarayan Samaj & Another V/s National Council For Teachers Education & Others Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Honble Shri Justice M.A. Siddiqui -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abhinav Singh Thakur, counsel for the petitioners. Shri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.3. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 27.6.2013 Challenging order Annexure P-1 dated 11.4.2009 passed by the Western Regional Committee and the order Annexure P-2 dated 18.8.2009 passed by the National Council for Teachers' Education, withdrawing the recognition granted and the action of the competent autho...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. District Magistrate/Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
Writ Petition No.2831/2010 27.06.2013 Petitioner present in person. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Considering the grievance raised in this petition, we direct the petitioner to implead the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur through the Commissioner as respondent No.2. Necessary correction in the cause title be carried out within three days. After correction in the cause title, petitioner to serve a copy of the amended petition to the standing counsel for Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur forthwith or to serve Municipal Corporation by payment of process fee within a period of one week by Registered post with A/D. Notice be made returnable within three weeks. So far as grant of ad-interim relief is concerned, it will be considered after hearing the Municipal Corporation. On 15.4.2013, we specifically directed in this matter that some places are to be earmarked for public meeting in Jabalpur Township, as it is necessary requirement under the democracy...
Rahul Gupta Vs. Thr Board of Secondary Education M.P.Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 W.P.No.156/2013 27/06/2013 Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondent. Alleging wrong being committed by the respondent M.P.Board of Secondary Education in drawing the Mark sheet of High School Certificate Examination (10+2) 2012 by depicting 25 marks in Sanskrit (General) instead of 75 marks, the petitioner has filed the petition seeking direction to the respondent to issue correct Make sheet with Distinction. in relevant subject. Petitioner having appeared in the High School Certificate Examination 2012 was issued a Mark Sheet on 04.06.2012 wherein he scored 76, 75, 92, 77 and 55 marks out of 100 in Hindi (Special).English (General).Mathematics, Science and Social Science respectively. However, in Sanskrit (General) the petitioner was shown having scored 25 marks out of 100. Aggrieved, petitioner sought re-totalling wherein 'no change' was informed on 02.07.2012. Still confident of having scored more marks, petitioner sou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »