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.
M/S Rajul Builders Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.7916/2013. 17.7.2013. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent-State. At the outset, it is contended by learned counsel for the parties that issue raised in this petition as to enhancement of price of property vide guidelines issued by District Collector, Jabalpur under Madhya Pradesh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 2000 has been decided by a Division Bench in the case of Rameshwar Neekhra (Writ Petition No.9226/2013[PIL].and Writ Petition No.8459/2013[PIL].).It is urged that directions as given in W.P.No.9226/2013[PIL].may also be issued in the present writ petition. Writ Petition No.9226/2013[PIL].has been decided in the following terms From the perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules it appears that there is a special provision for revision, which reads thus :- 9. Powers of special revision- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained these rules, the Inspector General of Registration ...
Brajmohan Valmik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.10791/2013 Vinayak Prasad Tiwari vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 05.07.2013 Heard Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 6.6.2013 by which the order of posting of the petitioner dated 23.8.2011 has been modified and the petitioner has been posted at Government Higher Secondary School Rahatha, District Umaria. It is, however, apparent that the petitioner has already approached the Commissioner, Shahdol Division, Shahdol by filing a representation for mitigation of his grievance. In the circumstances, as the petitioner had already approached the competent authority by filing a representation, without entering into the merits of the case or making any comments upon the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Commissioner, Shahdol to consider and decide the petitioner's rep...
Krishna Kumar Sahu Vs. Mr. Pradeep Jhariya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 CONC.NO.150/2013 17/07/2013 Shri H.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Alleging willful disobedience of order dated 15.12.2006 passed in W.P.No.18602/2006, present contempt petition has been filed. The Writ Petition (which has been dismissed by order passed today) was for direction to respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the land bearing KhaSr.No.364/7 area 0.004 hectare situate at village Majholi, District Sihora and for grant of building permission as well as mutation and for quashing enquiry report dated 31.03.2006. That on 15.12.2006 it was directed that until further orders parties to maintain status quo. That on 29.08.2012 the petitioner was served with the notice in following terMs.**fo"k;ka r xZ r lw f pr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkidh xks e Vh@nq d ku 'kfk tS u firk Lo0J.jru pUn tS u ds edku ds ckjts ds uhps gS ].'kfk tS u dk vkos n u i= iz k Ir gq v k gS fd og vius iq j kus Hkou es a lq / kkj@ejEer dk;Z djkuk pkgrh gS a ftles a 3 ekg dk le; yxuk la H k...
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.3349 o17. 7.2013. Petitioner present in person. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.AG for the respondents No.1 to 5. Shri Prashant Singh for respondent No.6. This petition is directed, in public interest, for removal of all the encroachment which are made in the campuses of Rani Durgawati University, Saraswati Vihar, Pachperhi and in the premises of Govt. Science College, Jabalpur. It is submitted by the petitioner that the campus of the University and college deserve to be made encroachment free as the campus is only for educational purpose and no encroachment should be permitted in such campus. Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submitted that he has no objection if directions are issued to the authorities for removal of the encroachment. It is also submitted by him that earlier the respondent No.6 had made various efforts to remove the encroachment,but, it was unsuccessful because no efforts were made by the local administration for removal of the encroa...
A.K. Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 W.P.No.111376/2013 A.K.Jharia versus State of M.P.17.07.2013 Shri Shakti Kumar Soni learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the concerned authority by taking up appropriate proceedings for either revocation of the impugned order of suspension dated 20.6.2013 or by filing an appeal, as may be advised. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so within fifteen days alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall take up the proceedings and decide them as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months thereafter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authorities would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed...
Smt. Aayasha Bano Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
M.C.C.No.844 / 2013 (Smt. Aaysha Bano ....Vs.....State of M.P.& otheRs.17-07-2013 Heard Mrs.S.Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner on I.A.No.7653/2013 for condonation of delay in filing this petition which is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner. The application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Also heard on the application for restoration of W.P.No.5726/2008 (S).It is submitted by the petitioner that since the peremptory order passed by this Court on 5-9-2008 was not communicated to the petitioner by the local counsel, therefore, she was not aware of the order and as such the same could not be complied with by the petitioner within the stipulated time, as a result of which the aforesaid writ petition stood dismissed for want of compliance of the Court's order. The application is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. It is directed that W.P.No.5726/2008...
Deshpal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.16593/2012 (Deshpal Patel versus State of MP and otheRs.17.07.2013 Heard Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Akash Choudhary, learned PL for the State on the question of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner having argued at length submits that as the petitioner is not being permitted even to participate in the selection process for appointment on the post of Guest Lecturer which has been undertaken by the respondents during the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process. The learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits in case the petitioner is eligible in accordance with the rules, his case shall be considered in accordance with law. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties without entering into the merits of the case or making any comments on the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner...
Vinay Mohan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 W.P.No.12542 of 2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT JABALPUR W.P No.12542 OF 201.Mohanlal Gupta Versus Radheshyam Gupta For the petitioner : Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Shri D.P. Patel, Advocate. ORDER (17.07.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.The petitioner/ defendant/ judgment debtor, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.12 Annex.P/13 and the order dated 25.7.12 Annex.P/14 passed by the II Civil Judge Class-II, Amarpatan District Satna in Execution Case No.17-A/05 whereby his applications for re-appointment of Commissioner and call the fresh report of the disputed place and the application for calling the earlier Commissioner for his cross-examination in connection of his report respectively, have been dismissed.2. The petitioner/ judgment debtor in execution proceeding of the impugned decree has filed the objection against the Commissioner's report of the disputed place submitted by Shri Vishwajeet Kushwaha, the Sub Engineer of Nagar...
M/S Ritu Food Products Private Ltd. Vs. Uco Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
M/s Ritu Food Products PVT.LTD.and another versus Uco Bank and another.W.P. No.12237/13 17/07/13 Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in a proceeding held under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act. Annexure P-2 dated 31st October, 2011, petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the Debts Recovery and Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, the petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the statutory remedy of appeal to the Tribunal is not maintainable. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioners to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy of appeal available to the Tribunal, this writ petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) (A.K.Sharma) Judge Judge Vy/-...
Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 W.P.No.11436/2013 17/07/2013 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner, a student prosecuting the Post Graduate couRs.in Commerce (M.Com.).from Veerangana Awanti Bai Post Graduate College, alleging that in I s t and II n d semesters the Roll No.1442986 has been changed to 1442985 and therefore, marks alloted to him has been accounted in favour of student having the Roll No.1442985 and the petitioner has been subjected to supplementary. The petitioner has filed original hall tickets of of main/semester examination 2011-12, ATKT 2012 13, main examination 2012-13 and M.Com.IV t h semester 2012-13. It is observed from these original hall tickets that the Admission Card of M.Co.I s t semester has been tempered wherein place of figure 6 (in red ink) figure 5 (in blue ink) has been over written, whereas there is no such over writing in other admission card which 2 W.P.No.11436/2013 carries the Roll No.1442986. Since admission card which has been tempered has...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »