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.
Dr. Nilesh R. Doshi Vs. Dr. Smt. Gunjan Doshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
1 W.P.16939/12 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Single Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA W.P.No.16939/2012 PETITIONER Dr. Nilesh R. Doshi, S/o Late Raman Lal H. Doshi, R/o Doshi Niwas, Irani Road, Post Dahanu Road, District Thane, Maharashtra State Pin 401602 Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Dr. Smt. Gunjan Doshi, W/o Dr. Nilesh R. Doshi, D/o Shri K.B.Garg, R/o H-8, Shashtri Nagar, Bhopal, M.P.2. Gaurav Doshi, S/o Dr. Nilesh R. Doshi, C/o. Dr. Smt. Gunjan Doshi, R/o H-8, Shashtri Nagar, Bhopal, M.P.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by - Shri Dharmendra Soni, Advocate. Respondents by Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate ORDER ( 24/07/2013) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 22.8.2012 Annexure P/1 passed by the Principal Judge of Family Court, Bhopal by which application of the wife/respondent no.1 has been allowed treating i...
Pawan Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Criminal Revision No.1225/2013 24.07.2013 Shri Ashok Koshta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State. Heard. Applicant/accused Pawan Sharma has filed this revision against the order dated 6.6.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Piparia in Sessions Trial No.250/2012 rejecting the application filed by him under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling Santo Bai (PW3).Accused Pawan Sharma is facing trial under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press this revision. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed as not pressed. (RAKESH SAKSENA) JUDGE AD/...
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Co.Ltd. Vs. M/S Shiv Sha ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
1 WA No.714/12 24.07.2013. Shri M.L.Jaiswal, learned senior counsel with Shri K.K.Goutam, learned counsel for appellants. Shri Amit Nagpal, learned counsel for respondent. This appeal is directed against an Order dated 12.03.12 passed in WP No.8691/11 by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent herein for award of interest on excess received amount was allowed, and the writ Court directed for payment of interest equivalent to the interest rate applicable to a scheduled bank for the period in question. The interest has been directed to be paid at the rate as notified by the Reserve Bank of India at the relevant time, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. This order has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that there was no deliberate intention on part of the appellants herein to withhold the payment, the payment was made immediately after the order passed by the High Court, so the appellants are not liable to make pay...
Aditya Mishra Vs. the M. P . State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.7151/2011 Aditya Mishra Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Anshuman Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned Counsel for the respondents. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (24/07/2013) The petitioner has claimed interest on his retiral dues, which according to the petitioner, were illegally withheld by the respondents on false pretext that the petitioner was facing an investigation for economic offence and, therefore, was not liable to be paid the retiral dues, though the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.01.2010. It is contended by the petitioner that while working on the post of Superintending Engineer in the establishment of respondents No.1 and 2, ...
Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education Rewa Vs. Board of Secondary Educ ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
W.P.No.11131/2013 24/7/2013: Shri Manot Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brajesh Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents. Considering the fact that the results for the D.Ed. 2nd year students have been declared more than a month back as stated by learned counsel appearing for respondent Board, respondent Board is directed to ensure that mark sheets be sent to the institute and thereafter the institute shall distribute the mark sheet to the students concerned within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) (MRS.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge mrs.mishra W.P.No.11133/2013 24/7/2013: Shri Manot Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brajesh Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents. Considering the fact that the results for the D.Ed. 2nd year students have been declared more than a month back as stated by learned counsel appearing for responde...
Devashish Dutta Vs. the Nepa Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
1 WA No.408/12 24.07.2013. Shri Darshan Soni, learned counsel for appellant. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent. IA No.9818/13 an application for withdrawal of the appeal. By this application, the appellant is seeking permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal. Prayer is opposed by Shri Gupta on the ground that the respondent has also preferred an appeal against the same order, but not the matter has been settled between the parties out of the Court and he may be allowed to file the settlement before this Court. As the appellant is seeking withdrawal of this appeal without any liberty, such prayer can be allowed even at this juncture. So far as settlement between the parties is concerned, respondent may file the aforesaid settlement in the appeal preferred by it against the impugned order which is stated to be pending before this Court. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is allowed. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with no orders as t...
Ravi Shankar Pathak Vs. Chairman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
M.C.C.No.786/2013 24.7.2013 Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. This application has been filed for restoration of W.A.No.1272/2012 which was dismissed because of non-compliance of the order dated 3-12-12. By the aforesaid order, the applicant-appellant was directed to make the defaults good within a period of two weeks. However, after a period of more than six months when the matter was listed on 19-6-2013, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-applicant, so the writ appeal was dismissed because of non-compliance of the earlier order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant may be allowed further two weeks time to make the defaults good, for compliance of the aforesaid order and the writ appeal may be directed to be restored. Considering the peculiar nature of dispute, in the interest of justice, the prayer is allowed. The applicant is allowed further two weeks time for c...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
(1) Writ Petition No.7229/2013 24.07.2013 Petitioner in person. Shri Purushendra Kaurav, Addl. Advocate General for respondents no.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate for respondent no.5. It is submitted by respondents no.5 and 7 that they have filed reply today in the office, a copy of which has been served to the petitioner. Sarvshri Rajendra Tiwari, R.P.Agarwal, R.N.Singh, Ravish Agarwal, Senior Advocates submitted that they are also appearing in the matter by filing intervention application and they may be heard in the matter. From perusal of the subject matter of the petition, we find that M.P.Pollution Control Board is a necessary party and accordingly we direct the petitioner to implead it as respondent no.8. Necessary correction in the cause title be carried out by tomorrow. Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Senior Counsel present in Court appears for the respondent no.8 and Shri Ashish Shroti accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.8. Petitioner to serve complete plead...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vasudev Kori
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Cr.A.No.1232/2013 24.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashap, G.A.for the appellant-State. Heard on I.A.No.15705/13, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay. As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 3 days. Considering the reasoning assigned therein, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment passed by II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court).Camp Court, Amarpatan, District Satna on 7/3/2013 in Sessions Trial No.248/2012, whereby the respondent has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. It was argued on behalf of the appellant-State that...
Shivdham College of Education Rewa Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
W.P.No.11133/2013 24/7/2013: Shri Manot Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brajesh Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents. Considering the fact that the results for the D.Ed. 2nd year students have been declared more than a month back as stated by learned counsel appearing for respondent Board, respondent Board is directed to ensure that mark sheets be sent to the institute and thereafter the institute shall distribute the mark sheet to the students concerned within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) (MRS.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge mrs.mishra...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »