Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 81 (0.37 seconds)Documents citing
Rajesh Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 2017
Ramjeet Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2019
So far another judgment of Single Bench of this Court passed in the case of Rakesh Kumar
Dubey (supra) is concerned in the judgment the aforesaid law laid down by the Honble Apex
Court has not been dealt with, however the reference of the judgment has been made on
different point. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment has not laid down correct preposition of the
law. It is settled law that when the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court is ignored
by the Bench of the similar strength that judgment can be ignored being per incuriam.
Rashid Mohammed Tai vs Water Resource Department on 2 December, 2019
6. The petition is accordingly, allowed for the reason
assigned in the order passed by this Court in Ramesh Prasad
Agnihotri (supra). The case relied upon by the learned Panel
Lawyer is not applicable. "
Ganesh Ram Kori vs Smt. Narmada Kori on 24 November, 2021
Thereafter, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C.was filed seeking a
direction for demarcation of the property so that the encroachment may be clearly
pointed out. The aforesaid application was considered by this Court vide impugned
order dated 17.08.2021 and the application was rejected on the ground that there is no
boundary dispute between the parties and the alleged encroachment is required to be
Signature Not Verified
SAN
proved by leading cogent evidence. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2021.11.30 10:53:30 IST
2 MP-3780-2021
by the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup and
others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 671; wherein, in similar circumstances the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has allowed the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. Placing
further reliance upon the judgments passed in M.P. No.1140/2017 (Rakesh Kumar
Dubey & others vs. State of M.P., decided on 19.02.2018 , he has prayed for
similar relief being extended to them.
Noor Mohammad (Dead) Thr. Lrs Mohd. Saif ... vs Haleem Mansoori on 21 February, 2022
Thereafter, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C.was filed seeking
a direction for demarcation of the property so that the encroachment may be
clearly pointed out. The aforesaid application was considered by this Court vide
impugned order dated 17.08.2021 and the application was rejected on the ground
that there is no boundary dispute between the parties and the alleged encroachment
is required to be proved by leading cogent evidence. He has placed reliance upon
the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Waqf Board
Signature Not Verified
SAN Vs. Shanti Sarup and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 671; wherein, in similar
Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Date: 2022.02.28 18:25:32 IST
circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the application under Order
2
26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. Placing further reliance upon the judgments passed in M.P.
No.1140/2017 (Rakesh Kumar Dubey & others vs. State of M.P., decided
on 19.02.2018, he has prayed for similar relief being extended to them.
Chandrashekhan Pathak vs Baldev Thakur on 27 September, 2024
In support of
contentions, learned Counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Rakesh Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P. 2013 (2) JLJ 207 and decisions of
coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Dubey vs. State of
MP and Another 2014 (2) MPLJ (Cri) 265, Rayees Ahmed vs. State (2016) 2
MPLJ (Cri) 654 and In Reference vs. State of MP 2016 (1) MPLJ (Cri.)
Ramesh Babu Shere vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 2019
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar issue involved in
the present writ petition forming the subject-matter of Writ Petition
No.15053/2019 (Ramesh Kumar Dubey vs. State of M.P. and others)
has been considered and decided by this Court by order dated 25-9-2019,
whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition for the
reasons assigned in the order passed in the case of Ramesh Prasad
Agnihotri vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No.13115/2019, decided
on 6-8-2019). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the
said order a writ appeal was filed and the order passed by the learned Single
Judge has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the writ
Court.
Rajesh Kushwaha vs State Cooperative Election Authority on 13 October, 2023
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court in
W.P.No.18530/2023 (Rakesh Kumar Dubey v. The State of M.P. & Ors.) on
20.11.2023 while disposing of the petition had directed the State Cooperative
Election Authority to decide the pending objections, including the objection of
petitioner therein, and if so required, modify and prepare fresh voter list.
Rakesh Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2018
Ramesh Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 27 March, 2018
Although under the provisions of Section 309(2)(b) of Cr.P.C.,
preoccupation of pleader in some other Court or non availability of
counsel is not a ground for adjournment, therefore, trial Court has
rightly passed the order whereby witnesses have been discharged but
in the interest of justice, looking to the undertaking given by the
petitioner that on the next date when witnesses would be called he
will cross examine them and counsel for the petitioner undertakes
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-7160-2018
(RAMESH DUBEY AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P.)
that he is ready to pay costs also, this Court intends to show
indulgence.