Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Smt. Angoori Bai JaIn Vs. Inder Chand JaIn Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
S. A. No. 277/2012. (Smt. Angoori Bai Jain Vs. Inder Chand Jain & another) 1 24/02/2014. Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the appellant. This is plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. Appellant filed the suit in question for permanent injunction with regard to a commercial block which was taken on rent from the respondent no. 1 in the year 1972 for a rent of Rs. 75/ per month. It is the case of the appellant that he was paying rent regularly but after the year 1993, the rent receipt was not given, the relationship between the parties became stale. Respondent No. 1 dismantled a wall in the back side of the said premises the suit was filed. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and fiRs. appeal filed has also been dismissed. It has been found concurrently by both the courts below that relationship...
Santosh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Writ Appeal No.1421/2013 24.02.2014 Shri Gyanendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. IA No.1950/14. This is an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, delay of ten days in filing the present appeal, is condoned. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 13.8.2013, passed in W.P.No.13001/2013 by which the writ court had refused to entertain the matter. The sole prayer of the appellant before the writ court was to execute the order passed by the labour court. The appellant herein had moved an application under Section 31(3) and 61 of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relation Act which was allowed by the labour court and an award was passed on 1.2.2001 directing payment of arrears of salary within a period of 90 days. This order was challenged before the Industrial Court, Rewa, which was dismissed, vide Annexure P-2. Thereafter...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ghanendra Pratap Khare Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Writ Appeal No.1430/2013 24.02.2014 Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent. IA No.16375/13, this is an application filed seeking condonation of delay of 343 days , caused in filing this appeal. Initially, it was asked whether the appellants are willing to file an additional affidavit explaining the aforesaid delay, on which State's Counsel, Shri Dwivedi submits that delay has been explained, therefore there is no necessity of filing any additional affidavit. Heard on the application. It is submitted by the appellants' counsel that after passing of the order by the writ court on 18.9.2012, the Government Advocate had gaven his opinion on 17.10.2012 that no appeal was required. Thereafter on 25.5.2013 a second opinion was sought to which the same Government Advocate had gaven second opinion that the appeal should be filed and on his second opinion the matter was sent to the Law Department for sanction for filing a wr...
Deshraj Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
:: 1 :: Writ Petition No.8148/2012. 24.2.2014. Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate for the State of M.P.on advance notice. Heard on admission. Petitioner seeks quashment of resolution dated 19.12.2011; whereby, Nagar Palika Parishad Khurai, in its special meeting, resolved to appoint Public Health and Engineering Department as the implementing agency for implementing the Central Govt. Scheme for supply of water and discharge of waste. Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) is a scheme for development of small and medium category of townships. The scheme is sanctioned by State Level Approval Committee followed by approval of the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development Department circulated vide Letter No.F-1-01/2007/18-2 dated 11.1.2007. The scheme provides for that upon its approval, the local authority is to fix the agency for its implementation. In the case at hand, the...
Nagendra Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
W.P.No.2742/2014 21.02.2014 Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the claim of the petitioners is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.14722/2003, Chhotelal Jaiswal versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 02.05.2010. It is contended that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in the case of Chhotelal Jaiswal (supra).the order granting benefit was issued in favour of the petitioners in the said case on 31.07.2012. Pointing out similar claim by the petitioneRs.the representations were made but the same have not been considered. Therefore, they are required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. If the claim is once adjudicated by this Court in a writ petition and the order passed in the said writ petition has been complied with by the res...
Pawan Kumar Vs. Manorama Bai Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
M.A.No.3874/2010 21.02.2014 Shri Abhay Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Smt. Devika Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Shri Gulab Sohane, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. This appeal is barred by 818 days and an application for condonation of delay is filed by the appellant. Despite service of notice of I.A.No.10560/10, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal only the Insurance Company has filed the reply opposing such a claim for condonation of delay made by the appellant. The reason assigned for delay in filing the appeal is that the appellant was not aware of the award passed against him. He came to know about this fact only when the notice of recovery was served on him. The reply of the respondent-Insurance Company to this I.A.is only this much that the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle has already been dismissed against the very same award by this Court and, therefore, such an enormous delay of 818 days is not required to be...
Gajendra Giri Goswami Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Cr.A.No.2782/2011 Criminal Appeal No.2782/2011 21.2.2014 Shri Vinay Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A.for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Harpreet Ruprah, counsel for the respondent No.2. Heard on admission. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.against the judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in S.T.No.243/2010, whereby the respondents No.2 was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the prosecutrix (P.W.3) was found missing on 18.7.2010 and a missing report, Ex.P/6 was lodged at Police Station Tendukheda on 19.7.2010. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was recovered and ultimately, case was registered after due investigation. The respondent No.2 abjured his guilt. He took a plea that the appellant was making the marriage of his daughter with someone else and since the pr...
Shiv Charan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
W.P.No.4954/2013 21.02.2014 Ms.P.S.Chuckal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. On earlier occasion, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents has made a statement that the progress report has been filed and all attempts are being made to interrogate the accused Dharmendra Kachhi against whom the allegations have been made in the writ petition as also in the complaint filed before the police about the abduction of the minor daughter of the petitioner. It was contended that the steps would be taken for performing a lie detector test on said Dharmendra Kachhi. Today, it is informed by learned Deputy Advocate General, that since said Dharmendra Kachhi who is an accused in the Sessions trial launched against him on the complaint of the petitioner herein, has been enlarged on bail by the Court below and because he is on bail, he is not available for interrogation and he is not coming forward for the sa...
Smt. Vineeta Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
WRIT PETITION No.2985/2014 1 21.02.2014 Shri Harshit Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitioners...
Vineeta Rajpoot Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
W.P.No.1801/2011 21.02.2014 Shri Mahendra Pateria, learned counsel the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents. The only grievance of the petitioner is that though she has qualified the written examination and was to be called for counselling, but no opportunity was given to the petitioner even when there were certain vacancies pointed out for sending the selected candidates for Patwari training. It is alleged that certain choiced persons were picked up and sent for training by the respondents. When the details were asked for by making the application under Right to Information Act, no such details were made available to the petitioner. Upon service of the notice of this writ petition, the respondents have filed their return and have relied on a newspaper cutting stating that when the counselling was scheduled, the news was published in the newspaper indicating that all the 82 candidates so selected were required to appear before the Counselling Com...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »