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.
Neeraj Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
R.P.No.595/2013 (Neeraj Vishwakarma versus State of MP and otheRs.22.07.2013 Shri C.N.Karan,learned counsel for the applicant. Heard. The applicant has filed this application seeking review of the order passed by this court on 26.06.2013 in W.P.No.10698/13 granting liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate authority by filing a revision. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot seek rehearing of the petition in review but can only seek review of the order in case there is a glaring mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. In the circumstances, I find no merits in the application for review which is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Chhakauri Lal Vishwakarma Vs. South Eastern Coal Field Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.No.10686/2013 Chhakauri Lal Vishwakarma vs. S.E.C.L & ORS.1 22.07.2013 Shri J.L.Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajas Pohankar learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner dated 17.1.2013, the order passed in the departmental enquiry dated 8.2.2013 and the show cause notice dated 4.6.2013 issued by the respondent authorities proposing to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner pursuant to the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the authority concerned had decided the departmental proceedings on the basis of the documents filed by the petitioner himself. That apart, it is also clear that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of assailing the final order passed in the departmental enquiry as well as against the show cause notice and, therefo...
Purshottam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
1 W.P. 819/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.819 of 2013 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Petitioner : Purshottam S/o Shri Madhu Kori, R/o Gram Chichalla dohmal, Tahsil Kurai, District Seoni, M.P. -Versus- RespondentS:1. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P.2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Seoni, M.P.3. Additional Collector, Seoni, 4. Divisional Forest Officer (South), Seoni. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by - Shri Vipin Yadav, Advocate. Respondents by Shri Anubhav Jain, Panel Lawyer ORDER ( 22/07/2013) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- (I) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari order dated 13.12.2012 may kindly be quashed. (II) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus respondent no.4 may kindly be directed to make t...
Navneet Kabra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
1 WP No.12494/13 22.07.2013. Shri S.B.Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner.Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl.AG for respondents. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- (a) That, this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records; (b) To issue an appropriate writ/order/ directing the respondents to immediately take punitive actions against the culprits so that the administration of justice could be sub-served; (c) That this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to constitute a high level scrutiny committee to scrutinize the averments and the information so given and annexed in the instant petition; (d) That any other relief which this Honble Court may deem fit. Case of the petitioner is that in the township of Narsinghpur autos are being plied without any licence and in this regard petitioner has made a complaint (Annexure P/1) to respondent no.1 on 7.5.13, but without any action. It is submitted that respondent no.1 may be directed to decide the complain...
Gaya Prasad Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
WP NO.10818/13 (Gaya Prasad Yadav & ors..Vs..State of M.P.& ors.) 22.7.2013 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that the present petition filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III can be disposed of in view of the order passed in W.P.No.147778/2012 decided by this Court on 11-9-2012 in the following terms : At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners submits that issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision in Anil Bhatt and others v. State of M.P.and otheRs.W.P.No.91/11 (s) decided on 21.02.12. In this petition the petitioners call in question the illegality of order dated 5.10.09, 7.12.09 and 15.12.09. By these orders as apparent therefrom eligibility criteria for the selection to the post of Contract Teacher Grade-III, was changed. By order dated 5.10.09 it was stipul...
Siddharth Associates Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Writ Petition No ::6253. / 2013 Sidharth Associates versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 22.07.2013. Shri Amit Sahni for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for the State. Petitioner had filed this writ petition challenging the order- dated 23.2.2013 Annexure P/8, by which registration of the petitioner as a Contractor with the Public Works Department was suspended. While issuing notice on the writ petition, interim relief was granted and on 1.5.2013 this Court had stayed operation of the impugned action. Now, during the pendency of the writ petition, the impugned action has been withdrawn and the suspension revoked. In view of the same, this petition is not rendered infructuous. However, after restoration of the suspension if the petitioner has any grievance still subsisting, he is granted liberty to take action afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, for the present finding the petition to have been rendered infructuous, this petition is dispose...
Smt. Afsana Bano Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.No.11683/2013 Smt. Afsana Bano vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 22.07.2013 Heard Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.6.2013 by which the petitioner has been sent back to the place of original appointment/ posting at Government Middle School Gurra, Block Gohparu, District Shahdol. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been previously transferred against which the petitioner had filed a petition before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation pursuant to which the respondent authorities passed an order on 26.7.2012 giving her posting at Government Middle School Shahanshah Ashram, Suhagpur, District Shahdol, but the respondent authorities have not again posted the petitioner at Gurra by the impugned order which is contrary to law....
Shobha Bhai Singh Vs. Divisonal Forest Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
F.A.NO.685/2009 22-07-2013 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent. Even though the case is listed today for considering the application for urgent hearing filed by the appellant but taking note of the very short controveRs.involved and the fact that there is no dispute, factual in nature with regard to the said controversy, with the consent of the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal at this stage itself. Challenge in this appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made to an award passed by the Additional District Judge, Seoni on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Award in question has been passed on 03-08-2009 and compensation to the appellant has been granted based on the assessment of the market value of the property. However, the only dispute warranting consideration in this appeal is with regard to award of interest under Section 23(1-A) of th...
M/S Ram Singh Chawla and Company Vs. Ramanujam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Conc. 1257/2011 22/7/2013: Shri B.K.Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that the only grievance of the petitioner is that his application has not been considered and decided within a period of six weeks as directed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.11.2010 in W.A.No.1197/2010, for the present without going into the merits of the controversy, it is directed that in case application has not been decided till date, the same be not decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, if application has already been decided, the decision be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two months. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits and have only directed the respondents to consider and take a decision on the representation. Accordingly, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits,this application is disposed of. c.c.as per rules (Rajendra Menon) ...
Deendayal Turkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Writ Petition No ::4678. / 2013 Deendayal Turkar and others versus State of MP and others 22.07.2013. Shri S.K.Soni for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for State. Shri K.K.Singh for respondent No.2. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. Petitioners were students who were granted admission to the B.Ed CouRs.in the Academic Session 2007-08, and contending that the result of the petitioners is not being declared by the University, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that this is one of the case where the recognition and affiliation granted to the Institute in question i.e Career College of Education & Technology, Balaghat, was cancelled; recognition was never granted to the Institute in question; and, the Institute without even grant of recognition admitted the students. The matter came to this Court and thereafter travelled to the Supreme Court in a SLP filed. The Supreme Court, in the SLP...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »