Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Shobhnath Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Cr.A.No.1776/2011 29.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri R.N.Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-State. Although, on the inner last page of the appeal memo, delay of 11 days has been calculated by the office, yet Office has not listed this matter for condonation of delay. Initially, this appeal was preferred as a Criminal Revision, later on, with the leave of the Court, it has been converted into a criminal appeal. Delay, if any, is condoned. Heard on admission. The appeal, being arguable, is admitted for final hearing. Record of the trial Court has already been received. Issue bailable warrant, in the sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand).against each one of the respondents, to secure their presence before the Registry of this Court on 23/9/13 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard. Matter be listed for final hearing in due course. (AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)...
Pramod Kumar Sharma Vs. Om Prakash Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
1 M.C.C. NO.926/2013. 29.7.2013. Shri A.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants. Ku. Anjali Banerjee, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company. Heard. This petition is preferred on behalf of the appellants/ claimants of M.A.No.592/2012 for appropriate direction in the light of final order dated 6.11.2012 passed in such Misc. Appeal, whereby allowing the appeal of the applicants the sum awarded by the Tribunal has been further enhanced by extending the right to the applicants to execute such award for enhanced amount against the respondents subject to payment of requisite Court fees before the Tribunal. As per averments of this petition, due to some bonafide calculation mistake and over sight instead to submit the required Court fees of Rs.7,500/- before the Tribunal the appellant has submitted the Court fees of Rs.11,000/- in the aforesaid appeal before this court. In such premises, prayer for issuing appropriate certificate stating that requisite Court fees...
Jagannath Singh Markam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
W.P.No.12175/2013 (J.S.Markam versus State of MP and otheRs.29.07.2013 Heard Shri Harshit Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2013 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority pursuant to the direction issued by this court in W.P.No.4737/13(S) dated 01.04.2013 has been dismissed on the ground that the appellate authority did not receive it within two weeks. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the order passed by this court on 01.04.2013 in the aforesaid writ petition was received on 03.04.2013 and thereafter the appeal was prepared and was sent by Speed Post to the Appellate Authority on 11.04.2013 and was also served by hand to the Superintendent of Police, Panna on 09.04.2013 as is evident from a perusal of Annexure P/21. From a perusal of the documents available on record it is clea...
Shyam Lal and anr. Vs. Sant Ram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Second Appeal No.1073/2005 29.07.2013 Mr.Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr.P.Parekh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. None for the respondents No.2 to 7. Mr.Manot Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.8. Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in adjudicating the controveRs.involved between the parties without appointment of the Commissioner, under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the identity of the suit property was in dispute in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Durga Prasad versus Parveen Foujdar and Other, 1975 M.P.L.J., 801 ?.. Let a copy of memo of appeal along with substantial question of law be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents within a period of one week. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one wee...
Ashish JaIn Vs. Municipal Corporation Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
MCC No.527/2013 29/7/2013: Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ishan Mehta, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1. None was appearing for respondent No.2 as is evident from order sheet dated 4.4.2013. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.18748/2012 which has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Keeping in view the reasons given in the application for restoration which is supported by an affidavit of the counsel himself and finding the same to be bonafide, this application is allowed. W.P.No.18748/2012 is restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the appropriate Bench. With the aforesaid, this application stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) (MRS.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge mrs.mishra...
Deepesh Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
W.P.No.12174/2013 Deepesh Sahu & Ano. vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 29.07.2013 Heard Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that though they are fully qualified and are having D.S.E qualification, they have been denied appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have filed a representation before the respondent authorities in this regard which is pending consideration. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioners approach the respondent authorities within a week from today alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the representation, filed by the petitioneRs.expeditiously in accordance with t...
Dr.Sarvesh Mani Tripathi Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Vishwa Vidhyalaya Sag ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
W.P.No.13092/2010 (Dr. (Ku.) Sunita Jain versus The Registrar, Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwa Vidhyalaya Sagar) 29.07.2013 Shri T.K.Khadka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel with Shri C.A.Thomas, for the respondent/University. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been rendered infructuous with the afflux of time, it may however, be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner Dr. (Ku.) Sunita Jain to approach the authority in case any outstanding dues that were required to be paid to her remains outstanding. The learned senior counsel for the University submits that in case the petitioner files such a representation, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty as prayed for, as having become infructuous. (R.S.Jha) Jud...
Ram Rahish Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
W.P.No.12213/2013 (R.R.Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.29.07.2013 Heard Shri Brahmendra Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner's name has been dropped from the final select list and has been included in Truti Sudhar avam anya Karan inspite of the fact that that he fulfills all the criteria and qualifications. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has filed a representation before the authority on 04.05.2013 (Annexure P/6) but no decision thereon has been taken till date. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the case or making any comments on the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today and a cop...
Laxmi Devi Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
W.P.No.11089/2013 (L.D.Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.29.07.2013 Shri V.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.MPS Chuckal, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner is not being permitted to participate in the counselling being conducted for making appointments on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III though the petitioner is over qualified having obtained a D.Ed. degree. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after a perusal of the petition it is observed on a statement to that effect being made by the learned counsel for the State, that similar petitions wherein the petitioners had raised the same issue, have been dismissed by this Court with observations in the case of Sanyogita Thakur and others v. State of M.P.and otheRs.reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 20 and without any observations in W.P.No.6129/2013 (S).finally decided on 15-4...
Brajmohan Singh Vs. Vishwanath Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Second Appeal No.650/2013 29.07.2013 Mr.Abhishek Gulatee, learned counsel for the appellant. Let records of the Courts below be sent for. Registry is directed to issue requisition for records within a week. Heard on I.A.No.8371/2013. On payment of P.F.by registered post with acknowledgment due within a week issue notice of aforesaid I.A.to the respondents. Notices be made returnable within a period of 6 weeks. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents are trying to create third party interest in respect of the suit land and in case they are not restrained, the same would lead to unnecessary complications. Taking into account the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.).Faridkot versus Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488.it is directed that till next date of hearing respondents shall not create any third party interest in respect of the suit lands or alienate it. Let the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »