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.
Munnalal Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
W.P.No.15545/2013 Munnalal Ahirwar vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 18.09.2013 Shri Nitin Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 6.8.2013 by which the District Education Officer, Damoh has given temporary charge of the post of Principal of the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kanti (Hatta) District Damoh to respondent no.5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has joined service 1 hours before respondent no.5 and being two years older to respondent no.5, is senior to him and, therefore, the charge could not have been given to respondent no.5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without approaching the respondent authorities for mitigation of his grievance. The ...
Jagat Narayan Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
W.P.No.16001/2013 Jagat Narayan mishra vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 18.09.2013 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 6.9.2013 by which he has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat Jawa, District Rewa to District Sidhi. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfeRs.It is further submitted that the petitioner's daughter is studying in class-12 and the transfer of the petitioner in the mid session would hamper her studies and, therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the transfer policy. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP1329 has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate r...
Jairaj Singh Vs. Public at Large
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Writ Petition No.15585/13 18.09.2013 Shri Lalji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.In the available circumstances instead to hear the arguments only on the question of admission, the counsel is heard on admission as well as for final disposal. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2013 (Annexure-P-1) passed by XIIth Civil Judge Class-I Bhopal, in Misc. Judicial Case No.55/13, whereby inspite publication of the notice in the news paper in compliance of earlier order of such Court, the petitioners have been again directed to publish such notice through publication in the news paper afresh. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the impugned order. Mere perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that on earlier occasion in the impugned case filed for succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, the direction for ...
M/S Nasib and Company Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
1 Writ Petition No.13566/2013 18.09.2013 Shri V.R.Rao, learned senior counsel with Shri S.Rao, learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner heard. Petitioner vide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to the respondents to make payment for the work executed. That, a contract was allotted to the petitioner for the work of Trenching & Pipe laying, of cable pulling, of cable splicing and termination, preparation of joint chambeRs.fixing, painting and sign writing of route/joint indicators and other associated works in section No.1 (BRN-KHK-01) of Barman Kashikheri OFC route located from Barman Tehsil Exch Km.4/10 in DET OFC Project Division-III vide agreement executed on 13.02.2012. The valuation of contract was Rs.1280815/-. The completion period was seven weeks (49 days) thus due date of completion of work was 13.02.2012. The work commenced on 20.12.2011. The case of the petitioner is that having completed 90% of work, the res...
Awadhesh Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
W.P.No.11543/2013 (Awadhesh Mishra and others versus State of MP and otheRs.17.09.2013 Heard Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.and Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioners are not being permitted to participate in the counselling being conducted for making appointments on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade-III though the petitioners are over qualified having obtained a B.Ed. degree. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after a perusal of the petition, it is observed on a statement to that effect being made by the learned counsel for the State, that similar petitions wherein the petitioners had raised the same issue, have been dismissed by this Court with observations in the case of Sanyogita Thakur and others v. State of M.P.and otheRs.reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ 20 and without any observatio...
Santosh Thakur @ D. Chandra Malijk Vs. Manager and Authorised Officer,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
1 W.P.No.10007/13. 17.9.2013. Shri B.R.Vijaywar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 13.9.2012 passed by 3rd Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.35- A/2010, whereby as alleged the repeat application filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the suit has been posted for hearing the arguments on such application. Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments perused the papers placed on record, I am of the considered view that mere fixing a date for hearing on any application could not be deemed or termed to be error committed by the trial Court, on the contrary such order shall be treated to be passed under the vested discretionary jurisdiction. So, in such premises this petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, after passing the order by the...
Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. Devendra Kumar Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
1 W.P No.13672 o17. 9.2013 Shri Rajesh Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 7.5.12, 23.7.12 and 29.4.08 passed by Vth ADJ (FTC) Satna in Co.No.20-A/08 (old No.23-A/07) whereby vide order dated 7.5.12 and 23.7.12, the case was adjourned with a direction to place for arguments on the application filed under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC while vide aforesaid order dated 29.4.08, the petitioner was directed to carry-out the valuation of the suit on the valuation of the consideration of the alleged agreement to sale and amend the suit for specific performance also with a further direction to pay the court fees accordingly. It appears that under the garb of aforesaid order sheets of adjournment of the cases, near abut after 5 yeaRs.the petitioner/ plaintiff has challenged the order dated 29.4.08 whereby he has been directed t...
Vijay Yadav Vs. Gangaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
1 W.P.No.10203/2011 (I) 17.9.2013. Shri Pushpendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. Instead to hear the petition on the question of admission with the consent of the parties the same is hearing finally. The petitioner/ has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2011, passed by 15th Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No.5-A/10, whereby the applications of the petitioner filed under Section 512-A/2010, for appropriate direction to the respondent to supply the name of the legal representatives of Sappu enabling the petitioner to ascertain whether they are necessary party in the matter or not and under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the plaint to plead that if relationship of the landlord and tenant has not been found to be established between the parties then the suit of the plaintiff be decreed on the strength of the title of the...
Lal Ji Patakar Vs. Jai Narayan @ Munna Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
Writ Petition No.13933/2012 (I) 17.09.2013 Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent. The petitioner - defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 7.8.2012, passed by the Civil Judge, Class, II, Chhatarpur in Co.No.154-A/09 till the extent of dismissing his applications filed under Order 8, Rule 1 (3) of CPC and application under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC. Having heard the counsel, I have carefully gone through the papers available on record alongwith the part of the impugned order whereby aforesaid applications have been dismissed. In the available circumstances, I am of the considered view that the application filed under Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC should have been allowed and the annexed document being an order of the court passed in judicial proceeding should have been taken on record because order passed by any court either in miscellaneous proceeding or ...
Dasrath Singh Yadav Vs. Vijay Bahadur Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
1 M.Cr.C. No.7301 of 2009 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J Misc. Criminal Case No.7301/2009 Dasrath Singh Yadav & another. -Vs- Vijay Bahadur Singh & others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri V.K.Jain, Advocate for the applicants. None for the respondents though served. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 17th day of September, 2013) The applicants have preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Revision No.236/2008 whereby the order dated 7.10.2008 passed by the SDM Tikamgarh in Case No.250/JT/01 was set aside in which the learned SDM closed the right of defence of the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants had moved an application under Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »