Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav Vs. Bhan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
FiRs.Appeal No ::417. / 2002 Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav versus Bhan Singh 19.09.2013. Shri D.S.Chouhan for the appellant. None for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal challenging an order passed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, with liberty to take fresh action in accordance to the provisions of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage, as it is said that even after restitution of conjugal rights was ordered in 2002, parties are not living together. Permission granted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. Record of the trial court be sent back. Certified copy as per rules. ( RAJENDRA MENo.) ( SMT. VIMLA JAIN ) JUDGE JUDGE Aks/-...
Sanjay Khedkar Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.10913/2009 (S) Sanjay Khedkar Vs. The State of M.P. & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Vinot Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (19/09/2013) The petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner working in the Scheduled Caste Development Department of State of Madhya Pradesh, has approached this Court ventilating his grievance against the order by which juniors to him, the respondents No.4, 5 and 6, have been promoted on the post of Deputy Commissioner ignoring the claim of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of District Organizer on account of his selection by the Public Service Commission. In due c...
Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. Poorankumar Adwani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 Cr.R.No.145/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.145/2012 APPLICANT : Dinesh Jaiswal, S/o. Babulal Jaiswal, R/o. Ward No.32, Motinagar, Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil and District Balaghat (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS:1. Poornkumar Adwani S/o. Jethanand Adwani, R/o. Ward No.32, Motinagar, Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil and District Balaghat (M.P.) 2. Mahendra Surana, S/o. Dhanraj Surana, R/o. Ward No.6, Balaghat, Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil and District Balaghat (M.P.3. Dr.Rishab Jain, S/o. Motilal Jain, R/o. Ward No.9, Gujari Chowk, Balaghat, P.S.Kotwali, Tehsil and District Balaghat (M.P.) 4. KIrti Kumar Lithare, S/o. Shankarlal, R/o. Village Aarwalajhari, P.S.Kotwali, Balaghat, Tehsil and District Balaghat (M.P.) 5. Ganesh Giri Goswami, S/o. Shri Krishnagiri Goswami, R/o. Ward No.32, Shantinagar, Moti Talab Road, Balaghat (M.P.) 2 Cr.R.No.145/2012 6. State of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S....
Vijendra Kumar Bammi Vs. M.P. P.K.Com.Ldt
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 W.P.No.15396/13 (O) 19.9.2013. Shri Sidharth Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ against the respondents for the following reliefs:1. That may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from acquiring the land of the petitioner without initiating the proceedings as provided under the Land Acquisition Act or any other similar enactment in force.2. That any other writ, direction or order as may be deemed fit may also be issued together with awarding of costs of theses proceedings. Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments after perusing the papers placed on record, in the available circumstances, instead to admit or issue any notice to the other side this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondent No.4/ Collector to consider and decide the represe...
Rachna Kedia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.3675/2011 Rachna Kedia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Advin Garner and Kapil Jain, Adv. for the applicant. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 19th day of September, 2013) The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhopal in Crime No.829/09 registered at Police Station, Piplani.2. Facts of the case in short are that, the applicant Rachna Kedia is declared absconded in Crime No.829/09 registered at Pol...
Ram Siromani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
W.P.No.15956 of 2013 (O) 19.09.2013 Shri Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Heard on the question of admission. Keeping in view arguments, advanced by the petitioneRs.counsel that initially after filing the application by the petitioneRs.under Section 178 of M.P.L.R.C., in short The Code., before the Court of Naib Tahsildar, inspite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, on which such case was proceeded exparte and without filing any application under Section 35 of M.P.L.R.C., such exparte order was challenged by the respondents before the Collector by way of revision. On consideration such revision was dismissed, on which respondents approached to the Additional Commissioner who allowed the revision of the respondents and by setting aside the order of Collector, directed the Tahsildar to decide the matter afresh in presence of both the parties. On challenging such order by the p...
R.C. Gupta Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.23905/2003 (O.A. No.249/1998) R.C. Gupta Vs. State of M.P. & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (19.09.2013) The claim made by the petitioner in the present petition, which was originally filed as O.A. No.249/1998 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Bhopal, was with respect to the alleged promotions of those, who were subsequently added as respondents in the petition. It was said that zone of consideration was not properly extended by the respondents while considering the cases of promotion and, therefore, the petitioner could not be given the benefit of promotion. Upon closure of the Trib...
Manoj Kumar Jharia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
MCC No.1142/2013 19.09.2013 Shri K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Virendra Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Heard. This petitioner has filed this petition for restoration of W.P.No.949/2005, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 22.8.2013. Having heard, perused the petition. As per averments of it, due to mistake of the office of counsel of the petitioner, he could not appear before the court on the aforesaid date when the case was taken up for hearing. Consequently the same was dismissed in the aforesaid manner. Keeping in view the principle that litigant should not suffer because of mistake or the fault of his counsel or his office, as laid down in the matter of Rafiq and another versus Munshilal and another reported in AIR 198.SC 1400.also keeping in view that on the aforesaid date the counsel of the respondents were present before the court, thus, in order to compen...
Anil Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
Writ Petition No.15983/2013 (O) 19.09.2013 Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Govt. Adv for respondent-State. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- 1. To command the respondents to stop construction of the canal through the private owned agricultural land of the petitioner forthwith and direct them to ensure construction of the canal in question, in accordance with law, 2. To direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner where construction of the canal has been carried on by them in an illegal and capricious manner on the agricultural land of the petitioner, 3. To grant such other relief/reliefs to the petitioners as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Having heard the counsel on admission, on perusing the record, I have found that with respect of the dispute raised in this petition, a repre...
Namdeo Ghanekar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.4760/2007 Namdeo Ghanekar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. ORDER (19.9.2013) The petitioner, a Class-IV employees of the Forest Department, working on the post of Peon, has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ventilating his grievance of non- consideration for grant of promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-III in appropriate manner and denying the said promotion to him, whereas, the benefit is extended to the respondent No.4, who is said to be junior to the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed on 18.3.1986 on the post of Peon in the establishment of Chief Conservator of Forest (Production).Bhopal. The petitioner ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »