Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.48 seconds)Shailendra Kumar vs Divisional Forest Officer on 6 July, 2017
6. On due consideration of the law laid down in the case of
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W. A No.338 of 2018
(Jagdish Prasad vs. Board of Revenue & others)
Trustees of H. C. Dhanda Trust (supra) and Shailendra Kumar
(supra), we are of the view that the writ petition of the appellant was
purely a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
present appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam is not
maintainable. The writ appeal is accordingly, dismissed, as not
maintainable.
Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji vs State Of Gujarat & 6 on 13 April, 2016
In view of the latest Full Bench decision of this Court in the case
of Shailendra Kumar (supra), the law laid down by the three Judges
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of of Radheshyam & another
vs. Chhabi Nath & others (Civil Appeal No.2548/2009) passed on
26.02.2015 and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of
Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat & others
reported in 2015 (9) SCC 1, we are of the view that the in the present
case, against the order of Board of Revenue, no writ appeal is
maintainable as the order passed by the Board of Revenue is not an
original order.
Jagdish Prasad vs Board Of Revenue ,Ajmer & Ors on 19 May, 2011
6. On due consideration of the law laid down in the case of
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W. A No.338 of 2018
(Jagdish Prasad vs. Board of Revenue & others)
Trustees of H. C. Dhanda Trust (supra) and Shailendra Kumar
(supra), we are of the view that the writ petition of the appellant was
purely a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
present appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam is not
maintainable. The writ appeal is accordingly, dismissed, as not
maintainable.
Jabalpur Bus Operators Association And ... vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 17 December, 2002
He placed reliance on the decisions in
the matter of Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. vs. State of MP &
others reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 72, Jabalpur Bus Operators
Association & others vs. State of MP & others reported in 2003(1)
MPLJ 513, Jaideve Siddha (Dr.) & others vs. Jaiprakash Siddha
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W. A No.338 of 2018
(Jagdish Prasad vs. Board of Revenue & others)
& others reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 595, Manoj Kumar vs. Board of
Revenue & others reported in 2008(1) MPLJ 152, Shailendra
Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another reported in 2017(4)
MPLJ 109, State of MP & others vs. M. S. Wakankar reported in
2007(1) MPLJ 99 and decision of Apex Court in the case of
Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat & others
reported in 2015(9) SCC 1,
Dr. Jaidev Siddha And Ors. vs Jaiprakash Siddha And Ors. on 19 July, 2007
He placed reliance on the decisions in
the matter of Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. vs. State of MP &
others reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 72, Jabalpur Bus Operators
Association & others vs. State of MP & others reported in 2003(1)
MPLJ 513, Jaideve Siddha (Dr.) & others vs. Jaiprakash Siddha
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W. A No.338 of 2018
(Jagdish Prasad vs. Board of Revenue & others)
& others reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 595, Manoj Kumar vs. Board of
Revenue & others reported in 2008(1) MPLJ 152, Shailendra
Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another reported in 2017(4)
MPLJ 109, State of MP & others vs. M. S. Wakankar reported in
2007(1) MPLJ 99 and decision of Apex Court in the case of
Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat & others
reported in 2015(9) SCC 1,
Manoj Kumar vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 2 November, 2007
He placed reliance on the decisions in
the matter of Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. vs. State of MP &
others reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 72, Jabalpur Bus Operators
Association & others vs. State of MP & others reported in 2003(1)
MPLJ 513, Jaideve Siddha (Dr.) & others vs. Jaiprakash Siddha
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W. A No.338 of 2018
(Jagdish Prasad vs. Board of Revenue & others)
& others reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 595, Manoj Kumar vs. Board of
Revenue & others reported in 2008(1) MPLJ 152, Shailendra
Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another reported in 2017(4)
MPLJ 109, State of MP & others vs. M. S. Wakankar reported in
2007(1) MPLJ 99 and decision of Apex Court in the case of
Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat & others
reported in 2015(9) SCC 1,
State Of M.P. And Ors. vs M.S. Wakankar And Anr. on 2 November, 2006
He placed reliance on the decisions in
the matter of Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. vs. State of MP &
others reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 72, Jabalpur Bus Operators
Association & others vs. State of MP & others reported in 2003(1)
MPLJ 513, Jaideve Siddha (Dr.) & others vs. Jaiprakash Siddha
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W. A No.338 of 2018
(Jagdish Prasad vs. Board of Revenue & others)
& others reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 595, Manoj Kumar vs. Board of
Revenue & others reported in 2008(1) MPLJ 152, Shailendra
Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another reported in 2017(4)
MPLJ 109, State of MP & others vs. M. S. Wakankar reported in
2007(1) MPLJ 99 and decision of Apex Court in the case of
Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat & others
reported in 2015(9) SCC 1,
Trustees Of H.C.Dhanda Trust vs District Collector The State Of Madhya ... on 30 March, 2017
6. On due consideration of the law laid down in the case of
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W. A No.338 of 2018
(Jagdish Prasad vs. Board of Revenue & others)
Trustees of H. C. Dhanda Trust (supra) and Shailendra Kumar
(supra), we are of the view that the writ petition of the appellant was
purely a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
present appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam is not
maintainable. The writ appeal is accordingly, dismissed, as not
maintainable.