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.
Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Girija Shankar Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
Review Petition No ::348. / 2013 Jai Prakash Associates Limited versus Girija Shankar Shukla and otheRs.17.07.2013. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the applicant. None appears for respondents 1 to 3, even though served and represented by counsel. This case was listed for consideration of the review application on 10.7.2013, when the matter was adjourned due to non-appearance of the respondents. Thereafter, it is again listed today. It was taken up for hearing in the fiRs.round and as none appeared, the case was passed over. When the matter was taken up in the second round, again none appeared. That being so, we have heard Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, and proceed to decide this review application. Respondents 1 to 3 filed Civil Suit No.6-A/2012 in the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Rewa challenging the acquisition made by the applicant/company. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed....
Bhaiya Lal Purvi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11387/2013 (B.L.Purvi & ORS.versus State of MP & Ors.) 17.07.2013 Heard Shri S.K.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. By filing the present petition the petitioneRs.who are working as Guruji, submit that their case be disposed of in the light of and in terms of the order passed by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of MP and otheRs.decided on 15.12.2010 in W.A.No.596/10. The aforesaid order has been quoted in the order passed by this court in W.P.No.5660/13(S) decided on 10.04.2013. Looking to the fact that the directions in the case of Gopal Chawla (supra) appear to be general in nature, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government in terms of and in the light of the order passed in the case of Gopal Chawla (supra) by filing a representation. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of...
Satyendra Kuamr Dubey Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Tax Madhaya P ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.2786/2013 (S.K.Dubey versus The Commissioner of Commercial Tax and otheRs.17.07.2013 Heard Shri K.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for regularization as Peon in the establishment of the respondents on the ground that the petitioner has been working as daily wager in the said department since 1997. It is also alleged that certain other persons who have not been impleaded as respondents in the petition, have been granted benefit of regularization but the petitioner's claim has been rejected. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that regularization is not permissible as it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted and ...
The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kiran Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
The United India Insurance Co.LTD.versus Smt. Kiran Bai and others.R.P. No.576/13 17/07/13 Ku. Anjali Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the claimants on advance notice. On being apprised of the position with regard to orders already passed by the Court concerned in a Review Petition being R.P.No.403/13 being decided by the same Court on 3/06/13, learned counsel for the applicant sought permission to withdraw this review petition with liberty to challenge the orders in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. With the aforesaid liberty, for the present, the Review Petition is permitted to be withdrawn. It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. (Rajendra Menon) (A.K.Sharma) Judge Judge Vy/-...
Harbhajan Singh Chopra Vs. Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
Harbhajan Singh Chopra and another versus Bank of India and others.F.A. No.507/13 17/07/13 Shri Saurabh Sahani, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel for the respondents/ Bank. Challenging the order passed by the Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.140 A/11 allowing an application filed by the respondents/Bank under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.dismissing the suit, this appeal has been filed. Facts in brief goes to show that a tripartite agreement was executed between the appellants and respondent No.1 Bank with regard to grant of certain loan and respondent No.3 firm was also a party to the said proceedings. As the respondent No.3 firm who has granted the loan had committed certain default, it seems that the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the statutory rule framed thereunder and proceedings were initiated for recovery of th...
Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.A.No.827 of 2012 Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava vs State of M.P.& others 17/07/2013 Shri Ashok Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Kumresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset has submitted that in view of the recommendations made by the High Power Committee, the transfer order of the appellant has already been cancelled by the State on 06th of July, 2013. It is further submitted that after cancelling the transfer order, another order dated 15th of July, 2013, by which, the appellant has been transferred to Burhanpur has been passed. As it is a subsequent order, the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to challenge the subsequent order. Prayer is not opposed, hence, it is allowed. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, however, with the aforesaid liberty as prayed. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge SJ/-...
Surinder Pal Singh Vs. Sanjeev Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4705/2013 17.07.2013 Shri Balaji Akillawar, Advocate for the applicant. Heard on admission. It appears that the applicant has challenged the proceedings of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the complaint was barred by limitation. However, such objection should have been raised before the trial Court and after passing order by the trial Court, further proceeding of criminal revision or petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.can be filed. Without raising such objection before the trial Court, no such proceeding can directly be filed before this Court. Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed being not maintainable with liberty that the applicant may raise such objection in writing before the trial Court about the fact that the complaint is barred by limitation. (N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari...
Kamta Prasad Vs. Mrs. Ram Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
CRR No.2233/2012 Criminal Revision No.2233/2012 17.7.2013 Shri Vijay Shrivastava, counsel for the applicants. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 17.9.2012 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in Misc. criminal case No.697/2009, whereby a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month was granted to the respondent. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the evidence adduced before the trial Court, it is apparent that the applicant was getting a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month from his job. He did not submit any document to show that he was ousted from that job or he was not doing anything. Under such circumstances, the amount of maintenance granted by the trial Court appears to be appropriate. It is not an excessive amount. The applicant could not prove that the respondent was earning on her own. If her mother was working as a maid servant to clean the utensils then, the respon...
Shishir Kumar Sinha Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JUDICATOR AT JABALPUR Division Bench :- Hon. Shri Justice U.C. Maheshwari & Hon. Mrs. Justice Vimla Jain Misc. Criminal Case NO.2425/2013. Shishir Kumar Sinhna and another Versus Union of India through CBI Jabalpur. For applicants : Shri Kunal Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Vikram Singh, Standing counsel CBI. ORDER (17.07.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The applicants/ accused have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (For short the Code.), being aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by Special Judge, CBI Jabalpur in Special Case No.1/2013, whereby their application filed under Section 207 of the Code for appropriate direction to the respondent/prosecution to provide them mirror copy of the electronic documents has been dismissed.2. The applicants' counsel after taking us through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on record and the copy of the aforesaid application dated 5.2.2013 (Ann...
Devendra Singh Sisodiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11300/2013 (D.S.Sisodiya versus State of MP and otheRs.17.07.2013 Heard Shri Shailendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, M.P.Forest Department whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Production Forest Range Waraseoni to Working Plan Unit Shivpuri. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has only 1 year and 8 months remaining for superannuation and in such circumstances and in view of the decision of this court in W.P.No.9984/13 (Dilip Chand Tembhare versus State of MP and otheRs.decided on 10.06.2013 and the policy of the State Government, the petitioner cannot be posted in Working Plan Unit. It is further submitted that the petitioner had previously approached this court by filing W.P.No.553/13(S) which was disposed of with certain directions...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »