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.
Hardas Vs. Govinddas Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Keshav K ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
M.C.C.No.1600/2013 1 07.01.2014 Shri V.P.Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the applicants. This M.C.C.is filed for restoration of S.A.No.380/1998, dismissed for want of prosecution on 06.12.2013. The reason assigned in the application duly supported by an affidavit of applicant No.1, who is a semi-literate person, is that the previous counsel who was engaged to prosecute the second appeal has not taken interest to prosecute the same on account of which the same was dismissed. However, such ground seems to be false and frivolous for the simple reason that when the second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, M.C.C.No.1111/2013 was filed by the very same counsel raising the very same allegation and by order dated 13.09.2013 the said M.C.C.was allowed and second appeal was restored. In fact it was the duty on the part of the Counsel, who filed M.C.C.No.1111/2013 to file a Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellants as the brief was already withdrawn from the previous counsel engaged by th...
Branch Manager,hdfc General Insurance Company Ltd, Vs. Lalsingh Judgem ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
1 M.A.3143/2012 M.A.3143/2012 07.01.2014 Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for appellant. None for respondents. There is a delay of 23 days in filing this appeal. Vide I.A.No.12859/2012, appellant seeks condonation thereof. It is urged that the Advocate who conducted the case before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal sent the certified copy to the appellant H.D.F.C., Ergo, General Insurance Company LTD.Indore alongwith opinion to file an appeal. The matter was referred to the head quarter, Mumbai for grant of approval for filing an appeal. At Mumbai legal opinion was sought, whereon, on the basis whereof the decision was taken to file an appeal. However, the papers at Indore got misplaced, as a result whereof some time could be spent in searching the same whereon a delay has occurred in filing the appeal. It is urged that there is no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal. Notices were issued on the application for condonation of delay, however, despite of servic...
Subhash Bende Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
W.P.No.8064/2013 07.01.2014 Shri A.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Though notices were issued on the last occasion to the respondents, but no return is filed by them. A prayer is made by learned Panel Lawyer for grant of some more time to seek instructions and file a return. Such a prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that similar claims were considered by this Court in the case of Prakash Limje versus State of M.P.and otheRs.W.P.No.15242/2005, which has been disposed of finally on 9.1.2012. The order passed in the case of Prakash Limje (supra) is looked into. This Court has considered the aspect that after a decision by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra versus Milind & otheRs.the State Government has evolved a new policy on 7.3.2011. Certain benefits have been extended to those who belong to Halba/Koshti community, as are granted to the members of the Scheduled Tribe ...
Smt. Rekha Dharwal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
WRIT PETITION No.21743/2013 1 07.01.2014 Shri Gyanendra Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Mohanlal (supra) has passed the following order : Accordingly, without commenting upon the ...
Mulu Vs. Jairam Yadav Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Keshav ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
M.A.No.1392/2013 07.1.2014 Shri Satish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Heard on I.A.No.5118/2013 an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is contended that the appellant No.1 was suffering from fever, cold, cough and various other diseases on account of which he could not approach the Court for filing of the appeal. Looking to the medical conditions and financial status of the appellants, the appeal could not be filed within time. Such contentions are supported by an affidavit of the appellant No.1. Though no reply has been filed by the respondents to this application for condonation of delay, but it is, vehemently, contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that there is no documentary evidence produced along with this application to show that the appellant No.1 was physically not in a position to make arrangements to file this appeal within time. It is contended that...
Dasodiya Vs. Aditya Prasad Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ro ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
S.A. No.1136/2012 07/01/2014 Shri Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. The instant second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 23/7/2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.15-A/2011 by Additional District Judge, Singrauli affirming the judgment and decree dated 19/4/2011 passed in Civil Suit No.24-A/2007 whereby the suit filed under Sections 34 and 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking declaration of title and declaration of sale deed dated 31/7/2007 executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 by late Bachchu Lohar be declared as null and void, has been dismissed.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this second appeal are that admittedly the suit land was owned by original-defendant No.3-Bachchu Lohar who died later on. A sale deed dated 31/7/2007 has been executed by late Bachchu Lohar in favour of defendants 1 & 2 and after execution of sale deed Bachchu Lohar had died.3. Plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are t...
In Reference (In View of C.O. D. 03/07/2013) Vs. Ceo, Cantonment Board ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
W.P.No.11909/2013 07.01.2014 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Shri S.P.Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the Cantonment Board, Pachmarhi, District Hoshangabad through the Chief Executive Officer. Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the Defence Estate Officer, Jabalpur Circle, Jabalpur. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State of Madhya Pradesh through the Department of Home & Internal AffaiRs.Bhopal and the Collector & Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad. Heard counsel for the parties. It appears that the Cantonment Board has shown its willingness to remove all encroachments on the Cantonment land. However, the Authorities of the Cantonment Board are facing difficulties to accomplish that target because of lack of police force. If this is the only reason for delay in removal of encroachment, we have no hesitation in directing the State Government to ensure that as and when requisition is received f...
Harish Parsai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Writ Petition No :: 31 / 2014 Harish Parsai and another versus State of MP and another 07.01.2014. Shri Umesh Trivedi for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for the State on advance notice. Challenging the order-dated 30.11.2013 Annexure P/4 passed by Collector, Hoshangabad exercising jurisdiction under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and further exercising certain powers available to him under the MP Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 and imposing a penalty of `50,000/-, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Prima facie on going through the order passed, it is seen that after the case was directed to be listed before the National Lok Adalat on 30.11.2013, the impugned order has been passed by the Collector. That apart, the Collector does not have jurisdiction to pass an order of punishment under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act It is only a court of competent jurisdiction not below the rank of FiRs.Clas...
Thakurdas Wadhwani Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Krishi Vipadan Board Bhopa ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
W.P.No.21628/2013 (Thakurdas Wadhwani versus MP State Krishi Vipadan Board and others ) 07.01.2014 Shri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by by order dated 09.02.2010 passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The petitioner submits that he has approached the Managing Director of the respondent-Board by filing a representation on 14.10.2010 Annexure P/8 but the matter is pending before the said authority though recommendation in favour of the petitioner has also been sent by the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi to the said authority. It is stated that till date the matter has not been decided by the Managing Director and in such circumstances, the impugned order be quashed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner has already approached the authority i.e.the Managing Director by...
Neelsh Chichale Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
W.P.No.2427/2013 7.1.2014 Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally heard. This Court vide order dated 22.11.2011 in bunch of writ petitions had passed the order, the relevant portion of which is as follows: 10. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Seoni the Collector or on his direction, the Additional Collector, Seoni, they shall afford an opportunity of hearing to each of the petitioners on the basis of the enquiry report available. A copy of the enquiry report shall be supplied to individual petitioners and the Collector/Additional Collector Seoni shall pass a final order based on the case of each of the petitioners after considering their defence and explanation adduced during the couRs.of the day. 11. The entire exercise in this regard be concluded within a period of thr...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »