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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Naresh Grover
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
1 FA No.426 o16. 8.2013 Shri Santosh Yadav, PL for the appellant. Shri Rajiv Mishra, counsel for the respondent. Initially, learned Panel Lawyer prays for further adjournment to file some affidavit in compliance of the earlier direction of this court. On perusing the earlier order sheets dated 28.6.13 and 29.7.13, I have not found any direction of this court. As such at the request of the State counsel the case was adjourned to file some affidavit. It is apparent that no such affidavit has been filed.2. The case is listed today for consideration of IA No.4778/12, appellant's application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing this appeal as the same is filed barred by six years and 121 days. The same is supported by an affidavit of Atul Singh S/o Shri N.P.Singh, Tehsildar (Nazul) Bairagarh, Bhopal. Such IA was drafted on 30.3.12 and the affidavit was sworn on 30.3.12 and the same is placed in this court along with the appeal.3. After receiving the notice...
Deepak Agrawal Vs. Smt.Uma Bai Mehto
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
Criminal Revision No.1526/2006 16.08.2013 Ku. Kiran Mehta, Advocate for the applicants. Mohd. Qasim, Advocate for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants by this revision have challenged the order dated 29.6.2006 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Criminal Revision No.137/2005 whereby the order dated 30.6.2005 passed by the SDM ItaRs.in Criminal Case No.10/2004 relating to seizure of the property under Section 146(1) of Cr.P.C.is set aside. The brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Survey No.558/01 and 551 total area 1.41 hectare was a land in dispute situated at Village Mehargaon. There was a dispute between the parties about the possession, and therefore a complaint under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.was lodged before the SDM Itarsi. The learned SDM ItaRs.has directed that there is a possibility of quarrel between the parties on the basis of possession, and therefore the property be attached and a receiver be ap...
Smt. Madina Begum Vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR First Appeal No :175. OF 201.Smt. Madina Begam & Anr. - V/s - Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey & Ors. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vimla Jain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Sushil Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri J.L.Soni, Advocate for Respondent No.1 & 2. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate , Shri L.S. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Shri Kaustub Jha & Shri Lav Kush Mishra, Advocates for Respondent Nos.4 & 5. ORDER ( /08/2013) As per Rajendra Menon, J :- This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling in question tenability of a judgment and decree dated 1.2.2011 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.41A/2008 dismissing plaintiffs' suit for 2 First Appeal No :175. OF 20...
Ku. Hansa Uke Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
W.P.No.13492/2013 Ku. Hansa Uke vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 16.08.2013 Heard Shri Ravindra Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12.7.2013 by which she has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Gowari to Gram Panchayat Koylikhapa, District Balaghat. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also alleges violation of the other clauses of the policy. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority themselves by filing a representation. In view of the afor...
Smt. Saroj Suhane Vs. Smt. Geeta Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
Smt. Saroj Suhane versus Smt. Geeta Dubey and others.R.P. No.655/13 16/08/13 Shri R.S.Jaiswal, learned Sr.counsel with Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.1. This application has been filed for review/recall of an order dated 13/06/13 passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court during the previous summer vacation allowing W.P.No.10275/13 even without notice to the present applicant and disposing of the writ petition directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property in question. Facts that have come on record goes to show that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed challenging two orders passed by the trial Court and 1st Appellate Court in the matter of granting injunction to the plaintiff. The Courts below found that a case for injunction was not made out and, therefore, the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. was dismi...
Arun Pratap Singh Vs. District Education Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
1 M.C.C. No.941/13. 16.8.2013. Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P.L.for respondent No.1. Shri Sajidullah Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This petition is directed for restoration of C.R.No.177/08, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order-dated 16.7.2013. As per averments of it, submission of counsel due to mistake of his office the case could not be marked in the cause list and pursuant to it when the case was taken into consideration no one has appeared, consequently the aforesaid revision has been dismissed in default. Keeping in view the principle that litigant should not suffer because of the mistake of the counsel, this petition is allowed and the aforesaid C.R.No.177/08, is restored to its original number with a direction to place before the Court for further orders in the week commencing 2.9.2013. Petition is allowed accordingly. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge K...
Mangilal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
W.P.No.13474/2013 (Mangilal and others versus State of MP and otheRs.16.08.2013 Heard Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umdevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the circular issued by the State Government on 16.05.2007. It is submitted that inspite of the aforesaid decision and the directions issued by the State Government, respondents/authorities have not constituted any Scrutiny Committee for considering the cases of the petitioners while the cases of other similarly situated persons in other districts have been considered and appropriate orders have been passed. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a dir...
Ankit Tare Vs. Palash Tare, Th:legal Guardrina Smt. Madhulika Tare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
1 C.R No.215 o16. 8.2013 Shri Bramhadatt Singh, counsel for the applicants. None for the respondent No.1 although served. In the available circumstances, the presence of respondent No.2 is not required. This appeal is listed today for consideration of IA No.5691/13 an application for grant of stay against further proceedings of the Succession Case No.8/12 pending in the court of XI Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur. Earlier, this revision was admitted vide order dated 16.5.13 and pursuant to that against respondent No.1, the further proceedings of aforesaid case before the trial court was stayed. Looking to the nature of the question involved in this revision, instead to hear the same on the aforesaid IA, with the consent of the applicants counsel, the same is heard on merits. Heard. ORDER (Oral) 1. The applicants (who are impleaded as non-applicants in the trial court) have filed this revision under section 115 of the CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.13 passed by the aforesaid...
VipIn Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
W.P.No.13422/2013 Vipin Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 16.08.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri T.K.Khadka for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State, on Caveat. Shri Kuldeep Singh learned counsel for respondent no.5, on Caveat. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 25.7.2013 by which the petitioner, who is working as a District Supply Officer in the establishment of the respondents, has been transferred from Katni to Annuppur. The petitioner has also assailed the order of the same date i.e.25.7.2013 by which the respondent no.5 has been transferred in his place. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had previously been transferred in April 2003 on promotion to Satna and thereafter in June 2006 from Satna to Balaghat. It is submitted that on 6.1.2007 the petitioner has been tr...
Nafees Ahmad Mansoori Vs. M.P. Aayurvedic Thana Unani Chikitsa Paddhat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 1220 Of 2011 16.8.2013 Shri Paresh Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for respondent. Heard. Being aggrieved by the decision of respondent Madhya Pradesh Ayurvedic Tatha Unani Chikitsha Paddhati Evam Prakritik Chikitsha Board, Bhopal in not issuing the certificate of registration in favour of the petitioner, i.e., Ayurved Practitioner on the ground of derecognition of degree of Ayurved Ratna obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that the decision taken by the Board suffers from vice of arbitrariness and contrary to the mandate in Shekhar Jain v. State of M.P. : MP 287/1990 decided on 6.5.1997. Petitioner, as apparent from the pleadings, possessed Ayurved Ratna degree awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan in 1988. He applied for his registration under Madhya Pradesh Ayurvedic, Unan...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »