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.
Balvendar Singh @ Binde Vs. Praveen Mullick Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
C.R.No.25/2006 Balvendar Singh & ORS.versus Praveen Mullick 10/01/2014 Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel for the respondent. This is a revision petition under Section 23-E of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961, wherein challenge is made to an order dated 20th of December, 2005 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal in Case No.38/RCA/2000. Certain objections filed by the applicants herein under Section 23-C have been rejected on the ground that the defense/ objections have been raised beyond the period stipulated in the Statute and, therefore, cannot be accepted. Respondents have appeared and have filed a reply and say that as the objection of the applicants was raised beyond the period of limitation, the impugned order is passed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that merely on the ground of delay, objections raised by the applicants were not accepted, the same is not sustainab...
Maniraj Bharti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Writ Petition No.22341/2013p (Maniraj Bharti Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.10-01-2014 Heard Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief as has been granted to one Uma Shankar Dwivedi, who had filed W.P.No.5458/2011 which was allowed by this Court on 4-3-2013. The petitioner in the present petition claims applicability of the similar service conditions to the petitioner as applicable to the employees of M.P.S.E.B.It is submitted that similar claim has been allowed by this Court in W.P.No.5458/2011 decided on 4-3-2013 which has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19-12-2013 passed in W.A.No.425/2013 and, therefore, the respondents be directed to confer similar benefits to the petitioner. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without approaching the respondent/authorities and, therefore, the question as to whether the...
National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt.Sunita Bai Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2691/2006 SUDARSHAN PRASAD SONI VS. SHEIKH NIGAM & TWO OTHERS MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2693/2006 SMT. KAUSHALYA BAI VS. SUDARSHAN PRASAD SONI & 2 OTHERS Present: Honble Shri Rajendra Menon, J.M.A. No.2691/2006 Shri S. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri V. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for Insurance Company. M.A. No.2653/2006 Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S. K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.1/ claimant. Shri V. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for Insurance Company. _________________________________________________ 2 JUDGMENT ( 1012014 ) As both these appeals under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, one by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and another by the owner challenging the liability imposed upon him arise out of a same accident and a common award is passed by the Ad...
Hemant Singh Vs. Smt. Hem Latha Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
CRR No.648/2012 Criminal Revision No.648/2012 10.1.2014 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for the applicant. Shri K.L.Gupta, counsel for the respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The learned JMFC, Bhopal vide order dated 9.8.2011 in M.J.C.No.24/2009 directed that the children of the respondent are in the physical custody of the respondent since long and therefore, there is no need to pass any order for their custody. In criminal appeal No.536/2011, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal vide order dated 28.2.2012, directed the respondent to keep her children with her and the applicant shall not interfere in her custody. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the respondent did not take the custody of the children from any Court under Guardian and Wards Act and therefore, the applicant was not deprived to move such an appli...
M/s Shoeland,partnership Firm Vs. PravIn Malik Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
C.R.No.38/2006 M/s Shoeland, Partnership Firm & Anr. versus Pravin Malik 10/01/2014 Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel for the respondent. This is a revision petition under Section 23-E of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961, wherein challenge is made to an order dated 20th of December, 2005 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal in Case No.37/RCA/2000. Certain objections filed by the applicants herein under Section 23-C have been rejected on the ground that the defense/ objections have been raised beyond the period stipulated in the Statute and, therefore, cannot be accepted. Respondents have appeared and have filed a reply and say that as the objection of the applicants was raised beyond the period of limitation, the impugned order is passed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that merely on the ground of delay, objections raised by the applicants were not accepted, the same is ...
Shobhit Samayya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
[1]. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: AT JABALPUR W.A. No.1185/2012 1. Shobhit Samayya, aged about 38 years, son of Shri Virendra Kumar Samayya, resident of behind Khushi Plaza, Bhanwartal Garden, Jabalpur (M.P.) 2. Dr. Sharad Mahajan, aged about 78 years, son of the late Damodarji Mahajan, resident of 340, State Bank Colony, Laxmipur Badi Ukhri Road, PS Kotwali, Jabalpur (M.P.) .........Appellants vs.1. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: Secretary Home, Vallabh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. The Additional Superintendent of Police (Crimes), District Crime Branch, Malviya Chowk, Jabalpur (M.P.) 3. The Station Officer, PS Kotwali, Jabalpur (M.P.) 4. Vipin Samayya, aged about 36 years, son of the late Vimal Kumar Samaiya, resident of Vidhya Sagar Complex, Tilak Ward, PS Kotwali, Jabalpur (M.P.) .........RESPONDENTS Present: Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti and Hon. Shri Justice Subhash Kakade ___________________________________________________________ Shri Imtiaz Hussain, Advo...
Smt.Kuresha Bi and Ors. Vs. Ajay Pal Singh and Ors. Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
M.A.No.1157 / 2005 Smt. Kuresha Bi and others versus Ajay Pal Singh and others 10.01.2014. Shri M.K.Sharma for the appellants. This appeal was filed on 30.3.2005 and more than eight years have passed, it is yet to be admitted. It is listed today for hearing on admission. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed challenging an award of compensation granted by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Claim CaseNo.77/2004. For the death of one Shri Id Mohammed, who died in an accident that took place on 6.3.2000, compensation of `1,17,000/- has been awarded and enhancement of compensation is sought for in this appeal mainly on two counts: The fiRs.ground is that the monthly income of the deceased has not been properly evaluated; and, that the age having not been correctly assessed, the multiplier applied is not proper. Records indicate that for proving the claim, the wife of the deceased namely Smt. Kuresha Bi was examined and in her stat...
Sudarshan Prasad Soni Vs. Sheikh Nigam Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2691/2006 SUDARSHAN PRASAD SONI VS. SHEIKH NIGAM & TWO OTHERS MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2693/2006 SMT. KAUSHALYA BAI VS. SUDARSHAN PRASAD SONI & 2 OTHERS Present: Honble Shri Rajendra Menon, J.M.A. No.2691/2006 Shri S. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri V. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for Insurance Company. M.A. No.2653/2006 Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S. K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.1/ claimant. Shri V. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for Insurance Company. _________________________________________________ 2 JUDGMENT ( 1012014 ) As both these appeals under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, one by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and another by the owner challenging the liability imposed upon him arise out of a same accident and a common award is passed by the Ad...
Gram Panchayat Jhiriya Vs. Collector Shahdol Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
1 R.P.942/2013 R.P.No.942/2013 10.01.2014 Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner. Heard. Review of order dated 09.12.2013 is being sought on two counts that though the writ petition was posted for consideration of an application for vacating the stay order, yet the matter was heard and finally decided and secondly, that there being delegation of power in sub-Divisional Officer under Section 85(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 to grant approval to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, yet the same has been taken note of while affirming the impugned order. Regarding the contention that the matter was posted for vacating the stay order and yet it was heard and decided finally, it is clear from the order sheet dated 09.12.2013 that the matter was heard finally with the consent of the parties. Petitioner, therefore, cannot raise a grievance. The fiRs.contention, therefore, fails. As to the contention regarding non-delegation o...
Smt. Asha Rathore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
1 W.P.No.448/2014 W.P.No.448/2014 10.01.2014 Shri A. Pathak, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Ms.V.Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Petitioners initially appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998. Subsequently, being absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapaks in pursuance to the Madhya Pradesh Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of service) Rules 2008 and granted regular pay-scale with effect from 01.04.2007 seeks direction to the respondents to grant regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi. During the couRs.of submission, it is being stated by learned counsel for petitioners that similarly situated persons have approached this Court vide writ petition No.602/2010(s) : Mohanlal and ors.v.State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 22.01.2010 & writ petition No.4720/2013 : Jitendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and these petitions were ...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »