Madhya Pradesh Court June 2012 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.Sushma Agrawal Vs. Bhel Anusuchit Jati/Janjati and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
S.A.No.657/1999 22.6.2012 Shri Devesh Jain, counsel for appellant. None for respondents. I.A.No.5609/2012 for modification/correction of the order dated 7.10.2002. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the substantial question of law framed by this Court deserves correction as there is some typographical error in the substantial question of law and the substantial question of law no.2 as framed by this Court may be re- framed as under :- (2) Whether the finding that D.C.Gujarkar was not president of the society at the time when Patta was granted on 7.12.1994, is perveRs.?.. After perusal of the record, prayer made in the application is allowed. It is directed that the aforesaid referred substantial question of law no.2 be treated as substantial question of law no.2 in place of substantial question of law as framed on 7.10.2002. Accordingly this application is allowed. Office to list this case for hearing before the regular Bench in the 1st week of July, 2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahot...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.4543/2012 22/06/2012 Shri Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was working as a Constable in the respondent's department, his services were terminated on 15.6.1964. Records indicate that he did not take any step for challenging the order passed by the respondent in the year 1964 and on the contrary, it was only in the year 2010 that he moved an application seeking various documents with regard to his termination under the Right to Information Act, Respondent No.2 on 4.3.2011 informed the petitioner that the service records of the year 1964 are not available. Inter-alia contending that in the absence of records being provided, this writ petition is filed claiming a dual relief for quashing the order of termination passed by the respondent or to supply documents under the Right to Information Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that this petition is barred by principles of delay. The...
Anuranjana Raizada Vs. Sanjeev Rohilla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 F.A.No.1201/11 22.6.2012 Shri Priyankush Jain, Counsel for appellant. From the perusal of the record, we find that this appeal is directed against an order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in M.J.C.No.327/2009 by which an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.was decided by the Family Court. The appellant moved an application for certified copy on 5.4.2011 which was prepared and delivered on 15.4.2011, but this appeal was filed on 20.12.2011. It is apparent that even if the provision as contained in section 18 of the Family Courts Act is taken into consideration, the appeal is barred by limitation, but no objection has been raised by the office in this regard. The Registrar (Judicial) shall look into the matter. The impugned order is passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.against which a criminal revision lies as has been held by the Full Bench in Rajesh Shukla versus Smt.Meena and another 2005(2) MPHT 301 In these circumstances, the ...
Ojharam Evane Vs. Jyoti Dhurve
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
E.P.No.46/2009 22.6.2012 None for petitioner. Shri A.J.Pawar, counsel for respondent no.1. Shri Anand Nayak, counsel for respondent no.4. Shri R.S.Dubey, counsel for Election Commission of India. I.A.No.37/2012 for permission to open the strong room & physical verification of the EVM's in presence of representatives of the parties. In view of the order passed today in Election Petition No.45/2009, no separate order is required in this petition, as this petition relates to the same constituency for which Election Petition No.45/2009 is filed. I.A.No.37/2012 filed on behalf of Election Commission of India, is accordingly disposed of finally. In this case evidence of petitioner is to be recorded. As none is appearing for petitioner, hearing of this case is adjourned for 20.7.2012 for recording evidence of petitioner by way of last opportunity. Be listed for hearing along with E.P.No.45/2009. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) JUDGE C....
Saint Andrews Marthoma Church Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.2590 / 2012 (Saint Andrews Marthoma Church, Jabalpur.v ..State of M.P.& otheRs.22-06-2012 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the respondents No.1 to 6. Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the intervener. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent/authorities to implement the order passed by the Tahsildar, Jabalpur, dated 20-9-2010 (Annexure P-11) directing removal of encroachment made by one Shri Pawan Baba on the petitioner's land. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased land comprising of KhaSr.Nos.306/1, 306/2 and 306/3, situated at Mouza Temar Bhita, Settlement No.250, Patwari Circle No.57, Tahsil and District Jabalpur through a registered sale deed in the year 2002. It is submitted that the petitioner after purchasing the aforesaid land applied for mutation. Thereafter the petitione...
Smt. Gudhuni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 M.C.C.No.807/2007 Smt.Gudhuni & another State of M.P.& others 22.6.2012 Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Sr.Advocate assisted by Shri Anuj Agrawal, Counsel for applicants. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.GA for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri P.C.Paliwal, Counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act There is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. MCC No.807/2007 This application is filed under Order 44 rule 1 CPC for grant of permission to the applicants to file this appeal as forma pauperis. It is submitted by the learned counsel for applicants that before the trial Court, the suit was filed under Order 33 rule 1 CPC and the applicants were permitted to file the suit as forma pauperis by order dated 2.3.2006. It is stated on affidavit by the applicants that their position is not good and they are still pauper and they are...
Chhotelal Rajak Vs. Brijesh Bahadur Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
1 W.P. No. 12381/2010 22.6.2012 Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.K. Rao, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. None for the other respondents though served. With consent they are heard. Grievance putforth by the petitioner vide this petition is that despite of being benefited by enhanced compensation in a Motor Accident Claim case the petitioners on execution of said claim are being deprived of the benefit of such enhancement on the technical count that the owner of the vehicle has not tendered the surety. On 28.4.2004 Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. MP 17 A/4858 met with an accident in front of Baba's Dhaba Jognihai National High Way No. 7, which collided with Truck No. UP72A/9105 resulting in death of Ranu @ Shashikala and Ramsumiran. The jeep was owned by Krishna Kumar Pathak and driven by Ram Sagar. Whereas the truck was o...
Girdhari Lal Agrawal Vs. Bheel Anusuchit Jati/Janjati and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
S.A.No.670/1999 22.6.2012 Shri Devesh Jain, counsel for appellant. None for respondents. I.A.No.5610/2012 for modification/correction of the order dated 7.10.2002. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the substantial question of law framed by this Court deserves correction as there is some typographical error in the substantial question of law and the substantial question of law no.2 as framed by this Court may be re- framed as under :- (2) Whether the finding that D.C.Gujarkar was not president of the society at the time when Patta was granted on 7.12.1994, is perveRs.?.. After perusal of the record, prayer made in the application is allowed. It is directed that the aforesaid referred substantial question of law no.2 be treated as substantial question of law no.2 in place of substantial question of law as framed on 7.10.2002. Accordingly this application is allowed. Office to list this case for hearing before the regular Bench in the 1st week of July, 2012. (Krishn Kumar Lahot...
Akhilesh Kumar Litoriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P.No.8689 / 2012 (Smt. Shanti .v ..State of M.P.& otheRs.22-06-2012 Heard Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 15-6-2012 passed by respondent No.4 rejecting the petitioner's nomination papers for contesting the election for the post of President of Municipal Council, Nainpur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.4 has rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner on the behest of his rivals who are politically dominant and has done so with a mala fide intention. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 has accepted identical nomination papers filed by other contesting candidates but with deliberate intention to victimize and subject the petitioner to discrimination has rejected the petitioner's nomination papers and in such circumstances in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the c...
Mahendra Singh Jat Vs. Vivek Kumar Mahajan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
F.A.No.12/20122. 6.2012 Shri G.S.Baghel, counsel for appellant. Shri Pradeep Sharma, counsel for respondent. I.A.No.167/2011 for stay. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that there is over typing in the document Annexure P-4, which is visible from bare eyes. Apart from this, the document expert examined by the appellant has supported the contention of appellant that in the document Annexure P-4 there was some over typing. It was submitted by the appellant that the execution of impugned judgment and decree may be stayed till the decision of this appeal. Prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent, who submitted that there is a decree in favour of respondent. The document expert examined on behalf of respondent has supported the contention of respondent and there was in fact no over typing in the document. Considering the fact that there is a finding in favour of respondent and against the appellant, we find it appropriate to issue following directions in the matter :- 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »