Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Zonal Manager Reliance General Insurance Vs. Suresh Damodar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Zonal Manager Reliance General Insurance versus Suresh Damodar & ORS.R.P.No.599/2013 26/08/2013 Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.B.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/Claimant. This application has been filed for review of an order dated 25.2.2013 passed in M.A.No.2312/2012. It is pointed out on behalf of the Insurance Company that while allowing the appeal filed by the claimant on 25.2.2013 in M.A.No.2312/2012, compensation to be awarded to the claimant has been enhanced and liability is imposed upon the Insurance Company to pay the enhanced compensation. However, as the appeal filed by the Insurance Company M.A.No.2656/2012 is already pending and there is a stay in the said appeal on 9.1.2013, it is stated that liability to pay the enhanced amount cannot be imposed upon the Insurance Company as the appeal filed by them i.e.M.A.No.2656/2012 is still pending. During the couRs.of hearing of this review application, an order dated 13.6.2013 passed i...
Rajendra Gengele Vs. Vishwakarma Nyas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
S.A.No.375 o26. 08.2013 None for the appellants. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the respondent. This case is listed today for admission and consideration of IA No.1889/06, appellants' application under Order 41, Rule 5, r/w Section 151 of CPC, so also respondent's applications, IA No.3874/10, 3875/10 and IA No.404/13, applications for early hearing of this appeal. In view of listing the matter, the IAs of early hearing do not require any further consideration, hence the same are disposed of. So far admission and consideration of IA No.1889/06 is concerned, I would like to mention here that earlier this matter was listed on 13.12.2010, on taking up the matter on such date, no one was present on behalf of the appellants to prosecute this appeal, on which for extending one more opportunity to the appellants' counsel to advance the arguments on admission by vacating the interim order dated 5.4.2006, the case was adjourned. Pursuant to that, the same is listed today. But the same ...
Manohar Jagwani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
(1) Writ Petition No.14333/2013 26.08.2013 Shri Atul Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Addl. Advocate General for respondents no.1 to 4. None for others as no notice is issued to them. The short grievance of the petitioner is that before the Collector, Shahdol, proceedings in respect of allotment of forest land are pending as per annexure P/8; but the said proceedings have not been decided till date. It is submitted that the respondents may be directed to decide the matter expeditiously. Shri Kaurav has no objection in this regard. From perusal of record it appears that since 2010 before Collector, Shahdol, case bearing No.15/A-74/09-10 is pending in which last date of hearing was 14.5.2013. The petitioner has raised objections in the matter and the aforesaid objections have not been decided till date. In view of the aforesaid we find it appropriate to dispose of this matter with following directions :- i) The petitioner may submit an application to the Collector,...
Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.13617/2013 (S.K.Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.26.08.2013 Heard Shri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 17.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa, and the order dated 30.06.2008 passed by the Collector Rewa whereby the order of the removal of the Panchayat Secretary has been upheld after recording a finding to effect that the petitioner has been given due opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the State by filing a revision in accordance with the provisions of the M.P.Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision rendered by this court in the case of Dinesh Pawar versus State of MP 2001(4) MPLJ 67 submits that the petitioner may directly approach this court in case the order is without jurisdiction or c...
Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Vs. the State of Madhy ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 W.P. No.7738/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.7738 of 2009 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Petitioners :1. Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, Ramgarh, Tah./Block Jatara, District Tikamgarh, through President Balwan Singh, S/o Shri Jannak J.Parmar, R/o Village Ramgarh, Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh, Block and Tahsil Jatara, District Tikamgarh.2. Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, Jatara, through its Manager Shri Ayub Ali, S/o Shri Chirag Ali, R/o Village Jatara, District Tikamgarh, M.P. -Versus- Respondents :1. State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Consumer Protection Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal.2. Collector, Tikamgarh.3. District Food & Supply Officer, Tikamgarh 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Jatara 5. Durgeshnandani Edhan Apoorti Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti, Jatara, Tikamgarh, M.P. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------...
Lekhraj Vs. Municipal Corporation Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.7138/2012 Lekhraj vs. Municipal Corporatio26. 08.2013 Heard Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by his reversion from the post of Dy. Health Supervisor to the post of Kamgaar by order dated 25.11.1994. Nearly 20 years delay in filing the present petition is sought to be explained by the petitioner by stating that the petitioner could only approach this Court after obtaining documents under the Right to Information Act and has thereafter filed this petition on obtaining the same. From a perusal of the statement made by the petitioner himself in the petition, it is clear that the petitioner was reverted in the year 1994 whereas the Right to Information Act came into existence in the year 2005. There is no explanation on record as to what the petitioner was doing from 1994 to 2005 and what prevented him from assailing the order of reversion during this period. It is apparent tha...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dinesh Chandra Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1...W.A.No.28 o26. 08.2013 Shri P. Dharmadhikari, G.A.for the appellants. Shri Sankalp Kochar, Counsel for the respondents. I.A.No.412/2013 for condonation of delay. Notice of this application is accepted by Shri Kochar who prays for short time to file reply of the application. Prayer is allowed. I.A.413/2013 for stay. Notice of this application is also accepted by Shri Kochar who prays for short time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the matter has been decided by the writ Court on the basis of the judgment dated 11.5.2006 passed by the Single Bench in W.P.No.9749 of 2003 in Ku. Seema Mishra versus State of M.P.but factual position in the present case is slightly different. The services of the respondent were terminated which was subject matter of O.A.No.141 of 1996 and O.A.No.140 of 1996 filed before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal and by a common order dated 27.3.2000 the applications were dismissed. The matter travelled to this...
Vijay Kumar Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.13711/2013 Vijay Kumar Lodhi & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 26.08.2013 Heard Shri Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioneRs.who had participated in the examination held by the respondents for making appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III that was held in the year 2011, have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to permit them to furnish their D.Ed. Degree that have been obtained by them in the year 2013. The law in this regard is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar versus Union of India and otheRs.(2007) 4 SCC 54.Bhupinderpal Singh and others versus State of Punjab and otheRs.(2000) 5 SCC 26.and Alka Ojha versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another, (2011) 9 SCC 438.wherein it has been held that an applicant must possess the necessary educational qualification and other qualifications on the last date of fillin...
Ganga Ram Yadav Vs. Karan Singh Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 MCC No.1027 o26. 8.2013 Shri Monesh Sahu, counsel for the applicants. He is heard on the question of admission. On behalf of the applicants/ registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle, without mentioning any provision, this petition is preferred for appropriate direction to refund the sum deposited by them before the tribunal in connection of award dated 17.3.07 passed in Claim Case No.114/06 by the Ist MACT, Sagar.2. The facts of the case in short are that initially vide dated 17.3.07, the above mentioned claims tribunal by allowing the claim petition of respondent No.1 has passed the award against the applicants for the sum of Rs.95,000/-. Being dissatisfied with such award, the applicants have filed MA No.3261/07 but without annexing the requisite receipts of the sum which is necessary to entertain the appeal as per provision of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. Inspite extending the opportunity in such Misc. Appeal when the requisite sum for entertaining such app...
M/S Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co.Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
(1) Review Petition No.704/2013 26.08.2013 Shri Sumit Nema, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Shri K.N.Pethia, Advocate for the respondent no.2. This application is filed seeking extension of time as was granted by order dated 7.8.2013 in W.P.No.3741/2013. It is submitted that the petitioner has already moved an application for intervention before the respondent no.1 and the case has been fixed for 10.9.2013 and till then the interim order issued on 7.8.2013 may be continued. The prayer made by the petitioner is not opposed by Sarvshri Sanjay lal and Pethia, counsel for respondents. By order dated 7.8.2013 following order was passed :- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the CIT (A) has passed an order against the respondent No.2 in respect of assessment and the respondent No.2 has preferred six appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur which are registered as I.T.A.Nos.67/Jab/2013, 68/Jab/2013, 69/Jab...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »