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.
Ram Lolar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
S.A.No.589/2010 Ram Lolar & Anr. versus State of MP & ORS.10/01/2014 Shri P.S.Gaharwar, learned counsel for the appellants. This is plaintiffs' appeal under Section 100 of CPC challenging the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the fiRs.appellate court in dismissing the suit filed for permanent injunction by the appellants/plaintiffs. Appellants/plaintiffs instituted the suit in question with regard to the land bearing KhaSr.No.417 Rakwa 9.57 Acre situated in Village-Garha Tahsil-Hanumana District-Rewa. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the land in the capacity of the bhoomi swami, they are in possession for more than 30 yeaRs.It was also found that the name of the plaintiffs' father has been mutated in the land record. However, on the basis of the material that came on record, both the Courts found that the land does not belong to the plaintiffs/appellants. They are not the holder of the land and finding a case of adveRs.possessi...
Mahadev Vs. ShiVshankar Prasad Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justic ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
1 S.A.No.578/2010 10.1.2014 Shri Sanjeev Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This is defendants appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2010 passed by fiRs.Additional District Judge, Sidhi in regular Civil Appeal No.67 A/2009, whereby while reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.12-A/1999 by Additional Judge to the fiRs.Civil Judge Class I, Deosar has decreed the Civil Suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Suit by the plaintiff was for declaration of title and ownership over 0.13 Acre (0.053 hectare) being part of 0.18 Acre of KhaSr.No.1186 situated at village Sarai, Tehsil Deosar, District Sidhi and that the mutation order dated 14.11.1983 and the appellate order dated 25.2.1988, be declared null and void and perpetual injunction that the defendants shall not interfere with the possession of plaintiff over suit property. The declaration was sought on the contentions that the suit property originall...
Krishan Kumar Agrawal Vs. Nand Kishore Dubey Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
W.P.No.22032/2012. (Krishna Kumar Agrawal & others versus Nand Kishore Dubey & otheRs.1 10/01/2014 Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Kapil Patwardhan counsel for the formal respondent. Respondent No.1 despite having served notice through Registry as well as through humdast has not entered appearance. Under such circumstances the matter is heard and finally decided. By this petition, the petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 20 th September 2012 passed by IV Civil Judge Class-I, Katni. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the defendants/ respondent no.1 had filed an application under order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC for taking certain documents on record in civil suit No.56-A/2009. The said application was allowed by order dated 30 th January, 2012 reserving the right of the plaintiffs to file documents in response to the documents filed by the defendants. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application for taking documents ...
The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur Vs. S.K.Dubey Judgement ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
R.P.No.172/2009 10.01.2014 Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by Shri Nair that the controveRs.raised in this case has already been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in R.P.No.172/2009 on 24.10.2013 in the case of M.P.Electricity Board, Jabalpur and others versus S.K.Dubey by which the Full Bench held thus:- "8. It is trite law that if a provision is made to deal with specific situation, the same would prevail over the general provision. [See: Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and OtheRs.(2010) 4 SCC498. At this stage, it is appropriate to notice the order dated 2.9.2003 which deals with the revised delegation of power. Under the aforesaid delegation of power, the Executive Director/Chief Engineer has been granted powers to punish and impose minor penalty for class I officers of the rank of Executive Engineer and equivalent and has been given full power in respect of officers below the rank of Executive Engineers and equivalent. The order dated 2.9.2003 issu...
Pradeep Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
1 W.P. No. 20850/2013 10.1.2014 Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Vandana Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondent State of M.P.Heard on admission. Petitioner calls in question the order dated 27/8/2013; whereby the services of the petitioner as Seller, (fodzsrk) Government Fair Price Shop Jamuniya No. 2, Rampur Naikin, Sidhi has been dispensed with having been found guilty of the misconduct after show cause notice by the Sub divisional Officer, Churhat, in exercise of his powers under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh, Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2009 (referred to as Control Order).Though it is contended that the petitioner is an employee of respondent No. 3, Sewa Sahkari Samiti, a Cooperative Society under M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and his services could not have been dispensed with, without adhering to the stipulati...
Ramesh Chandra Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
W.P.No.22137/2013 10/01/2014 Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 11/10/2013 (Annexure-P/12).letter dated 28/10/2013 (Annexure-P/5) and letter dated 17/10/2013 (Annexure-P/4).The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is serving as Development Officer in Govt. Garden Krishabagh, Bijawar, Distt. Chhatarpur. There appears to be some irregularities in the matter of purchase and distribution of sprinkleRs.mining irrigation in the said District and such irregularities have found on physical verification. A charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-P/9. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the charge sheet issued to him and he is prepared to face the enquiry. The petitioner grievance is on account of interference by the Collector and repeated directions issued by him to the department for initiating criminal action against the petitioner. At this junct...
Smt. Anita Khandekar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
1 W.P.No.18294/2013 W.P.No.18294/2013 10.01.2014 Shri Ashok Shrivastava, 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 pet...
Shoeb Qureshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Shoeb Qureshi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.2760 / 2011 10.1.2014: Shri Surendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General and Shri Aditya, learned counsel for respondents. Petitioner was granted admission in LLB couRs.(three years semester Course) for the academic session 2008-2009. The petitioner was prevented from appearing in the 5th Semester Examination which was held in the year 2011-2012 on the ground that petitioner is short of aggregate in the third semester examination. The result of the 4th semester examination was also not declared, on such consideration petitioner have cleared the fiRs.year i.e.1st semester and 2nd semester. The controveRs.involved in the matter is with regard to counting of the aggregate. The question is as to whether the aggregate has to be counted based on marks received in each semester separately or marks received in particular year. The question was considered by a Division Bench of this Cou...
Gyan Prakash Vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
W.P.No.529/2013 (PIL) and W.P.No.18800/2013 (PIL) 10/01/2014 Petitioner in person with Shri Aditya Sanghi, Advocate as amicus curiae in W.P.No.529/2009 (PIL).Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P.No.18800/2013 (PIL).Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. We have heard the petitioner in the leading writ petition, who is appearing in person, as well as the counsel for the petitioner in the companion matter, and the learned Additional Advocate General. After hearing the parties, prima facie, we are in agreement with the apprehension and the doubts expressed by the State about the compliance of the directions already given by this Court. In view of the statutory provisions in place since 2006, the State is obliged to take that to its logical end by creating dispensation and establishment of Directorate of Prosecution as mandated by Section 25-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, at the same time, the State may have to reconcile th...
Smt. Parveen Bano Vs. Anwar @ Kallu Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri J ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Criminal Revision No.736/2012 10.01.2014 Shri Wakeel Khan, Advocate for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 13.1.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar in MJ.No.162/2010 whereby the maintenance of the applicant was enhanced from a sum of Rs.1,000/- to a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant had filed a maintenance application for herself and her son Parvej in the year 2002, which was accepted vide order dated 29.6.2002 and maintenance of Rs.1,000/- was granted to the applicant whereas maintenance of Rs.1,000/- was granted to Parvej. Again an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C.was moved by the applicant and vide order dated 13.1.2012 the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar enhanced the maintenance from a sum of Rs.1,000/- to a sum of Rs.2,000/-. After considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is apparent that the applicant prayed for enhancement o...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »