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.
Council for Research in Yoga and Naturaopathy and Technical Education ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
R.P.No.513/13 19/07/13 Shri Deepak Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the applicants. This application has been filed for review/recall of the order dated 13/05/13 passed in W.P.No.8781/13. It is stated that while dismissing the writ petition, by taking note of the order sheet dated 16/08/11 of the trial Court, wherein it was shown that none is appearing for the objectors and as no reason for the non-appearance is indicated, the petition was dismissed. However, not by bringing on record the order sheet dated 16/08/11 and the appearance of the counsel indicated therein, it is pointed out that in the order sheet, it is shown that the objector is represented by his counsel Shri Abdul Mateen and, therefore, the assertion that none appeared for the objector on 16/08/11 is incorrect. I have gone through the order dated 16/08/11, even though in the appearance, the objector's counsel is shown to be present but in the main part of the order, it is indicated that when the case is taken up at 16:25...
Jai Hind Singh and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR DB: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENo.& HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL SHARMA, JJ. Civil Revision No.1158/2001 M/S.Lal Ganga Singh Versus State of M.P.& Another --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for the petitioner. Shri Rohani Prasad Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (04/07/2013) This civil revision has been filed challenging the award passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No.18 of 1998. By this order, the claim filed by the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs.,8,87,500/- has been decided and only a sum of Rs.75,298/- along with interest @12% p.a.has been awarded. Challenge is made to the award in question in these proceedings initiated under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.2. The petition...
Surendra Rathore Vs. Anita Rathore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
FiRs.Appeal No ::48. / 1997 Surendra Rathore versus Smt. Anita Rathore 19.07.2013. None appears for the parties. This appeal was filed in the year 1997 and it is listed today after a period of more than 10 yeaRs.It was listed on 22.4.2003, when learned counsel for the parties stated that the matter between the parties is compromised out of court and, therefore, a report is to be submitted. However, till date no report is submitted and none is appearing for the parties. It seems that parties have compromised the matter and they are no more interested in the lis. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. (RAJENDRA MENON) (A.K.SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE Aks/-...
Suresh Awadhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.11476/2013 (Suresh Awadhiya versus State of MP and otheRs.19.07.2013 Heard Shri P.C.Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming appointment on the post reserved for visually handicapped person for the appointment of the Diesel Mechanic Training Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner is an eligible candidate for the same post but his candidature is not being considered. It is however, observed that the petitioner has already filed representations before the respondent No.2 on 07.05.2013 and 17.06.2013 but no decision thereon has been taken by the said authority. Shri Rahul Rawat, learned Panel Lawyer summits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned. 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 di...
Niranjan Kumar JaIn Vs. Ghanshyam Das Kankane
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
R.P.No.206/2013 19/7/2013: Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the applicant. Considering the fact that while disposing of the writ petition No.10682/2012, this Court refused to interfere into the matter only on the ground that the petitioner was a tenant which fact is not correct. Petitioner is a co-owner and therefore, as the writ petition was disposed of on wrong consideration of the fact, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, this review application is allowed. Order dated 27.2.2013 passed in W.P.No.10682/2012 is recalled. The said writ petition 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) Judge mrs.mishra...
Rajendra Kumar Patel Vs. Barkatullah University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.2420/2011 19/7/2013: Shri P. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi and Shri Tavrez Sheikh, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri P.K.Kourav, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that they are students of Bhawani Prasad Shukla College, Sihora, District Jabalpur. They have undertaken the examination for the B.Ed CouRs.held by the Rani Durgawati University in the year 2009, however their results have not been declared. Pointing out that results of more than 20 other institutes have been declared, the writ petition was filed. Compensation is also sought for in the writ petition to say that if some default has been committed by the institute, the petitioners cannot be put to loss for the loss caused to them due to the default of the institute. Accordingly, a compensation of at least Rs.50000/- is sought for on the ground of default by the institute of respondent No.3. Respondents have filed ...
Dinesh Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
1 W.P.No.21862/2011 19/07/2013 Shri P.N.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner, a legal practitioner, seeks quashment of communication dated 20.10.2009, order dated 11.11.2010 and the agreement dated 29.12.2010 between the respondent No.2 and 3. Vide communication dated 20.10.2009, petitioner's representation has been turned down, whereas by order dated 11.11.2010 State of Madhya Pradesh alloted floor area constructed at Rajiv Gandhi Bus stand in favour of respondent No.3, whereon the impugned agreement was entered into between the respondent 2 and 3. The floor area admeasuring about 4500 sq.ft. constructed over Rajiv Gandhi Bus Stand, Shahdol by respondent Municipal Council, Shahdol was offered for rent vide NIT dated 22.07.2009. The tender however could not fructify as on the date when the tender was invited i.e.07.08.2009, the Commercial Banks were 2 W.P.No.21862/2011 closed due to strike. Another NIT therefore, was issued on 27.08.2009 for submitting the offe...
Ramlal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.351/1998 Appellant : Ramlal S/o Gulab Lodhi aged about 28 years, R/o Village Gurjikala, P.S. Rithi, Katni (M.P.) Vs. Respondent : The State of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Rithi, Katni (M.P.) For appellant : Shri G.S.Baghel, Advocate For the respondent : Shri B.D.Singh, Govt. Advocate JUDGMENT ( 19 /7/13) The appellant has been convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine stipulation, though he was acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.). The impugned judgment dated 23/1/1998 was passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.250/96. Appellant is husband of Godabai (since deceased). Their marriage was solemnized ten years prior to the date of incident.2. According to the prosecution case, appellant Ramlal persistently subjected Godabai to cruelty and harassment on the ground of her dark complexion and disinclination to...
Smt. Meena Namdev Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.11493/2013 (Smt. Meena Namdeo and others versus State of MP and otheRs.19.07.2013 Heard Shri S. Raghuwnshi, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and Shri Rahul Rawat, learned panel lawyer for the State on advance copy. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioners have not been called for selection for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III although the petitioners have cleared the eligibility test. Similar petitions wherein the petitioners have raised the same issue, have been dismissed by this Court in the cases of Sanyogita Thakur and others v. State of M.P.and otheRs.reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 20 and W.P.No.6129/2013 (S).decided on 15-4-2013 and in the circumstances this petition being identical, the same is also dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the case of Sanyogita Thakur (supra) this Court has made certain observations and, therefore, the ...
Raju Lutare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.11530 / 2013 (Raju Lutare .Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.19-07-2013 Shri Tabrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue the representation filed by him before the concerned authority. The petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct W.P.No.10179 / 2013 (Dr. Abhay Kumar Sinha..v...State of MP & otheRs.24-06-2013 Heard MRS.Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner, who was working as Medical Officer at P.H.C.Matguwan, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11-5-2013, passed by the respondent No.4, Chief Medical and Health Officer, Chhatarpur, whereby he has been suspended. It is, however, observed from a perusal of Annexure P-8, that the petitioner has already assailed the order of suspension before the appellate authority. It is a settled law that a p...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »