Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 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.
Jamuna Prasad Vs. Balkishan Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
1 Second Appeal No. 488/2011 16.1.2014 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal at the instance of defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2011 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 105A/2010 by Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal affirming in judgment and decree dated 29.3.2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 473A/2007 by the VIIIth Civil Judge Class I, Bhopal. Suit by the plaintiff was for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises, i.e., room of House No. 1, situates at Mouja Jumerati, Near Rajaji Well Beldarpura, Lane No. 2, Bhopal on the ground enumerated under Section 12 (1) (a), (c), (e), (h) and (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 12.2.2014. However, in Appeal (Regular Civil Appeal No. 48 A/2005) the judgment and decree was reversed and the matter...
Murari Prasad Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
W.P.NO.14362/2012 16/01//2014 None appears for the petitioner. Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Seeking a direction from this court to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Guest Teacher in the institute in question mainly on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as Guest Teacher for the academic session 2011-12 and there are directions by the Commissioner, School education for continuing the guest teacher for the academic session 2012-13, the petitioner has filed this petition contending that he has not been continued in view of the directions of the Commissioner, School Education. The respondents have filed return and points out and even though there is a direction for continuing such guest teachers who are appointed but direction is to examine the performance of the teachers for the previous year and to grant them appointment, if they are found eligible. It is indicated in para-2 onwards with regard to the petitioner that for the academic y...
Smt. Suman Agrawal Vs. Rajesh Verma Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri J ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.10906/2013 Smt. Suman Agrawal Vs. Rajesh Verma & Others PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.Shri Ankit Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P. Acharya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER (15.01.2014) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14.9.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.674-A/2007 by 19 th Civil Judge,Class II, Bhopal allowing the application of the respondents/plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint.2. It is contended that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit initially for declaration and permanent injunction in mandatory form. An application for amendment was made by the respondent/plaintiff, which was contested by the petitioner. The said application was rejected vide order dated 30.6.2010. A writ petition was preferred before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the 2 respondents/plaintiffs challenging s...
M/s Ambica Enterprises Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
1 W.P.No.15500/2013 15/1/2014. Shri Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Patel, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Looking to the very short controveRs.inovlved in the matter and keeping in view a detailed order passed by the M.P.Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, this petition is being disposed of on the basis of the affidavits and documents filed by the petitioner. Petitioner was granted a work order for carrying out certain work. Petitioner completed the work and after completion submitted his final bill dated 21.10.2009 claiming a sum of Rs.9,56,920/- from respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 did not settle the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the matter travelled to the M.P.Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for resolution of the dispute. The Council conducted its deliberation and before the council the petitioner appeared, the respondents also appeared through the Collector and Chief Municipal Officer...
Mst Baliya Vs. Tejbhan Patel Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
SECOND APPEAL No.324/2013 1 15.01.2014 Shri M.P.Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission. This is second appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.34-A/2013 by the Additional District Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa, arising out of judgment and decree dated 19.03.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.252-A/ 2009 by the I Civil Judge, Class-I, Mauganj, District Rewa. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of their title over the land in suit and a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents alleging that on the basis of wrong entry in part of the land in suit, the respondents/defendants have started interfering in possession of the appellants, therefore, for seeking declaration of their title and injunction, the suit was required to be filed. Such a claim was contested by the respondents on the ground that there was a partition in between the members of the family and exclusive land ...
Girdhari Naik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Writ Petition No.22129/2013 15/01/2014 Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioner is that on a complaint made by him a departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent No.4 and an enquiry report was obtained. A show cause notice is issued to the respondent No.4 and the matter is pending with the respondent No.2 who has not passed any final order. It is contended that in the enquiry report misconduct of the respondent No.4 is proved. Therefore, it is appropriate for the respondent No.2 to pass orders on the said matter. Despite making representations, since nothing is being done, no orders are passed in the said enquiry by the respondent No.2, this writ petition is required to be filed. Holding a departmental enquiry is an administrative function of the State for which unless any statutory time limit is prescribed, a command cannot be issued by the Court....
Prabhu Dayal Birari Vs. M.P.Rajya Nagrik Aporthi Naigam Ltd. Judgement ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Prabhu Dayal Birari versus M.P.Rajya Nagrik Aporthi Nigam LTD.Civil Revision No.165 / 2012 15.1.2014: Shri Shashank Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sudha Gautam with Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Challenging the order passed by IXth Civil Judge Class- II, Bhopal in Execution Case No.122-A/2004 rejecting an application for execution of the order of the appellate authority dated 24.4.2006 passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in M.C.A.No.27/2005, rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner, this civil revision has been filed under Section 115 of the CPC. Facts in nutshell goes to show that petitioner was working in the respondent's establishment and his services were terminated. The termination resulted in proceedings being initiated in the court of FiRs.Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No.122-A/1982 and vide judgment and decree Annexure P-1 the trial court found that the termination of the petitioner with effect from...
Sachchidanand Sheketkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Give ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
WP.No.8815/2011 15/01/2014 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.Dharamdhikari, G.A.for respondent no.1-State. Shri Manas Verma, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate for respondent Nos.3,4 and 7. Shri K.Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Heard, counsel for the parties. As this petition raises short question, we deem it appropriate to take up the petition for final disposal forthwith, by consent. Counsel for the respondents have waived notice for final disposal. The principal challenge in this petition is to the appointment of respondent Nos.3 to 8 as Aldermen by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, in exercise of powers under Section 9(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short the Act of 1956).The petitioner has asserted that none of these respondents possess special knowledge or experience in the Municipal administration and yet have been nominated by the State Government, which is against the spirit of Sectio...
Kaushlendra Singh Vs. Uma Prakash BrahmIn Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
1 S.A.No.933/2011 15.1.2014 Shri S.D.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal at the instance of defendant No.1 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amarpatan District Satna in Regular Civil Appeal No.51-A/2009; whereby, the judgment and Decree dated 13.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Amarpatan in Civil Suit No.38-A/2008 has been partly reversed. That on the basis of long possession over a piece of land ad-measuring 0.64 acre being part of 0.74 of KhaSr.No.600 situated at village Mahudar, respondent/plaintiff No.1 filed a civil suit for the relief that the sale deed executed by respondent/defendant No.2 in favour of appellant/defendant No.1 be declared void ab initio and for permanent injunction on the ground that the property was in possession of his ancestORS.the respondent/defendant No.2 is not the owner of suit property and as such the sale effected by him is null and voi...
Parasmal Kankaria Vs. Vikas Kankaria Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
1 C.R.66/2013 C.R.66/2013 15.01.2014 Shri A.P.Shroti, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Besides Interlocutory Application 1437/2013 and 14055/2013 for vacating the stay order dated 17.10.2013 the matter is also posted for admission. By order dated 17.10.2013 further proceedings in Civil Suit No.32-A/2012 pending before IVth Civil Judge Class-II, Balaghat has been stayed. The suit in question is by respondent No.1/plaintiff who, claiming to be in possession of house adjoining to house of Parasmal (petitioner/defendant No.1) in ward No.20 said to be bequeathed in his favour by Rajmal vide Will dated 20.02.1985 for the declaration that : "(i) the finding of Civil Court in Succession Case No.17/87 and in Civil Suit No.22-A/88 holding that Will of Late Shri Rajmal dated 20.02.85 is not proved, is not binding on present plaintiff as not being party of the said proceedings. (ii) It be declared that evidence recorded on behalf of present ...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »