Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Sukarta Vs. Hajari Dullaiya and Anr. Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Second Appeal No.1469 / 2005. 4/3/2014. Ms.Vandana Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No.2-A/05 by learned Second Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.63-A/98 by learned Civil Judge Class-II, Laundi, District Chhatarpur, rejecting the suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff for declaration of title and possession over the agricultural land bearing survey no.586/1, 592, 594 situated in village Parmajhor. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff Sukarta showing himself as son of Gariba Ahirwar on the ground that the Gariba who was earlier known as Gariba Teli has changed his Surname after marriage with a lady belonging to scheduled caste as Gariba Ahirwar and thereby, the plaintiff has claimed right of succession in the land held by Gariba. Both the courts below have given ...
M/s Kabra Agro Industries Ltd Pipariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
W.P.No.2055/2014 04.03.2014 Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is directed against a notice dated 22.01.2014, said to be issued by the respondent No.2 in the newspaper. It is alleged that a writ appeal is filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court against the order dated 08.10.2009 passed in bunch of writ petitions, dismissing the said writ petitions. While entertaining the writ appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has directed on 14.2.2011 to maintain status quo with respect to the subject matter of the property involved in the said writ appeal. It is contended that despite the fact that such an order is passed by the Division Bench and is brought to the notice of the respondents, yet the respondent No.2 has initiated the proceedings for sale of the property and, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that the respondent No.2 is not a party to the writ appeal and, therefore, no action co...
Balram Gumasta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.5225/2006 (s) Balram Gumasta Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others Present: Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi For Petitioner: Shri A.M. Trivedi, Senior Advocate with Shri S.K. Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate. O R D E R0303/2014 The petitioner working as a Patwari was issued a show cause notice on 28th May, 2005 proposing to impose a major penalty on account of certain misconducts, as indicated in the said show cause notice. It was alleged that the petitioner was taken in custody and sent to civil prison for nonpayment of the maintenance amount to his wife, by an order of the Judicial Magistrate and he had remained in Sub Jail Mandla w.e.f. 15.3.2005 to 13.4.2005. The petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement and when he was called upon to make a statement, he did not disclose this fact. The petitioner ...
Jaylal @ Jagga Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Criminal Appeal No.832/2013 3/03/2014 Shri S.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Santosh Yadav, PL for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.111/14, second application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. The fiRs.application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28/06/2013. Appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under sections 366, 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years & fine of Rs.500/-, RI for 7 years & fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age. Though, mark sheet has been filed by the prosecution but no other evidence in support of aforesaid mark sheet has been produced. The mother of the prosecutrix admitted in her cross examination that her marriage was solemnized before 25-26 years and after 5-6 years prosecutrix w...
M.P.Road Transport Corporation Vs. Javed Khan Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
WRIT PETITION No.6453/2009 1 03.03.2014 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.11.2007 passed in Appeal No.32/MPIR/2007 by the State Industrial Court, Jabalpur affirming the order dated 22.06.2007 passed in Case No.28/MPIR/2004 by the Labour Court. It is contended that respondent No.1 was only a driver engaged on badli and was not a regular driver, therefore, there was no question of following any procedure laid-down under the Industrial Disputes Act for his retrenchment. However, misreading the provisions, not appreciating the evidence in appropriate manner, it was held by the Labour Court that the removal of services of respondent No.1 was bad in law as the statutory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. As a result, the order passed by the petitioner was set aside and direction was given to reinstate the re...
Dammu Vs. the Collector Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Kesha ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
CIVIL REVISION No.166/2010 1 03.03.2014 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicants. Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents. I.A.No.4734/2010, an application for condonation of delay in filing this revision, has been filed by the applicants. It is contended that the order passed in the note-sheet, though was approved by the Collector, was never communicated to the applicants within time and they were not aware whether their application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'Act') was properly decided or not and on account of this reason, they could not approach this Court by way of filing this revision. Though the notices of the said I.A.has been issued to the respondents, yet no response whatsoever has been filed by them. Considering the aforesaid, I.A.stands allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. It is contended by learned Counsel appearing for the applicants that when the award was passed on 09....
Mukesh Rathore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
W.P.No.10882/2007 3.3.2014 Shri Shashank Shekhar, counsel for petitioners Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, G.A., for respondent no.1. Shri Anshuman Singh, counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4. Shri Kunal Thakre, counsel for respondent no.5. It is submitted by Shri Shekhar that still the conditions of various roads are not upto the mark and some of the roads are not motorable. The aforesaid position is seriously disputed by Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4, who has submitted that earlier the conditions of the roads were not good, but now all the roads belonging to the Municipal Corporation have been made good. That in case any road or roads or any part thereof are pointed out by the petitioners in this regard, the Corporation is ready to make them upto the mark as well as motorable. On raising such contention, Shri Shekhar, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the aforesaid position is factually not correct and if a committee is constituted to inspect the roads,...
M/s Surinder Singh Kalra Vs. Union of India Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Writ Petition No :: 21780 / 2012 M/s Surinder Singh Kalra versus Union of India and another 03.03.2014. Shri Manish Verma for the petitioner. Shri N.S.Ruprah for the respondents. Petitioner, who is a contractor, has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in proposing to recover from the petitioner the royalty charges for the minor minerals consumed by the petitioner in execution of the contract. The question involved in the matter has already been considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.21793/2012 (M/s Surinder Singh Kalra versus Union of India and another).vide order passed on 16.12.2013. Taking note of the facts, the Division Bench has observed as under: 10- The question of insisting upon the payment of royalty and the question of deducting royalty from the bills on similar contract has already been considered and decided by this court in various judgments. The question of demanding royalty from a contractor with...
Smt. Chandrawati Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Giv ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
WRIT PETITION No.21485/2013 1 03.03.2014 Shri D.K.Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioner is the widow of one Lakhanlal Ahirwar, who was working as Assistant Teacher and had died while in service on 30.09.2009. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment of her husband. 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 decid...
Smt.Archana Gour Vs. the Superintendent Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Smt. Archana Gaur versus The Superintendent, Rail Mail Service & ORS.M.C.C.No.2154 / 2005 3.3.2014. None appears for the parties. Records perused. This application has been filed for correcting the cause-title of W.P.No.3857/1996, which was decided by a Bench of this Court on 21.9.2005. It is stated that while disposing of the writ petition, the name of the applicant Smt. Archana Gour is not reflected in the cause-title, as the legal heirs of respondent No.5 Late Gopal Prasad Gour. Late Gopal Prasad Gour and five other employees were working under the Superintendent Railway Mail Service, they were working as daily wages employees and due to action of the Superintendent Railway Mail Service in preventing them from working with effect from 13.7.1996 a dispute was raised and matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court. The said authority passed an award on 10.1.1992 answering the reference and granted some relief to the employees including Shri Gopal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »