Madhya Pradesh Court January 2013 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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rajkumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
M.Cr.C No.10995 o23. 01.13 Shri Geetesh Singh Thakur, PL, counsel for the applicant. Heard on the question of admission. On behalf of State of Madhya Pradesh, this petition is preferred under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal against judgment dated 29.7.09 passed by I ASJ.Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad in Cr.A.No.59/06 whereby the judgment dated 20.6.06 passed by the JMFC Sohagpur in Criminal Case not No.608/05 convicting and sentencing to the respondent No.1 and 2 namely, Rajkumar and Uma Devi for the offence under section 498-A of the IPC and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has been set aside and they have been acquitted in appeal. Having heard, perused the record of both the courts below (it is noted that the record of Sessions Court is available in present M.Cr.C.While the record of trial court is available with connected M.Cr.C.No.10305/09 filed by the victim against affirming the acquittal of the other co-accused by the revisional court) I am...
M/S Pragati Firm Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Writ Petition No.3408/2012 23.1.2013 Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General, for the State/ respondent nos.2 and 3. The respective learned counsel for parties pray that an effort be made for amicable settlement of the dispute. In view of the aforesaid, we deem it proper that the matter should be referred before the Mediation Centre. Shri A.K.Shrivastava, Coordinator, Mediation, shall do the needful by appointing Shri P.R.Bhave, Senior Advocate, as Mediator. The parties shall appear through their counsel before Shri A.K.Shrivastava on 29.1.2013. List the case for further orders in the week commencing 11.3.2013. Interim relief to continue until further ordeRs.Certified copy as per rules. JUDGE ps...
Arvind Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1 M. Cr.C.NO.4745/2010. 23.1.2013. Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned PL for the respondent. The petitioner one of the victim of alleged incident has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by Special Judge/ 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T.No.91/2010, whereby on evaluation of the charge sheet the charge of Section 326 of IPC was not framed against the accused of the case and only after framing the charge of Sections 323, 294, 506-II and 324/34 of IPC the case was remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Sirmor for its trial and adjudication. Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view the arguments, I have carefully perused the copy of the charge sheet available on the record along with the impugned order. As per initial report of the applicant he sustained as many as four injuries out of them injury No.1 was sustained by him on the head, as alleged...
Yusuf Vs. HusaIn Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Writ Petition No :788. / 2013 Yusuf versus Hussain Khan and others 23.01.2013. Shri A.D.Mishra for the petitioner. Challenging the order-dated 4.10.2012 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class I, East Nimad, Khandwa in MJ.No.3/2011, for restoration of MJ.No.3/2004 which was dismissed for want of prosecution, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are plaintiff, had filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction and petitioner was defendant in the said suit. On 11.2.2004, due to want of prosecution at the stage of evidence, the suit was dismissed. On 9.3.2004, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed application for restoration of MJ.No.3/2004 before the 1st Civil Judge Class I, East Nimad, Khandwa, for restoration of the suit. By order- dated 4.10.2012, MJ.No.4/2011 was allowed and MJ.No.3/2004 was restored and, therefore, petitioner is before this Court. The order impugned passed on 4.10.2012 restoring MJ.No.3/2004 is based on sound consideration and the Court...
Kishore Samrite Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. W.P.No.12109/2009 Kishore Samriti -Versus- State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice S.A.Bobde, Chief Justice. Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi, Judge. Ms.Shobha Menon, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri C.A.Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. ORDER (23.01.2013) Per : S.A.Bobde, Chief Justice. The petitioner, by way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has called in question the constitutional validity of the M.P.Gazette Notification dated 25.8.2009, whereby the Gram Panchayats, Bisoni, Purva Tola, Tekri and Dulhapur were excluded from the area of Nagar Panchayat Lanji. 2: In the M.P.Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity).there is a power conferred on the Governot to include or exclude certain area from the limits of Municipal areas under Section 5-A of th...
Smt. Sheetal Chaurasiya Vs. Laxmi Kant Chaurasiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
MCC No.650/2012 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K.Shrivastava MCC No.650/2012 APPLICANT : Smt. Sheetal Chaurasiya, w/o Shri Laxmi Kant Chaurasiya, R/o Tilak Ward, Behind M.K.Hotel, In front of Police Station Civil Lines, Mandla, District Mandla (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT : Laxmi Kant Chaurasiya s/o Shri Nandi Lal Chaurasiya R/o 463, Mahatma Gandhi Ward near Ram Mandir, Dixitpura, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (M.P.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, Advocate for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER { 23-01-2013 } This is an application under Section 24 CPC which has been filed by the wife against her husband to transfer the divorce suit (Case No.57A/2010) pending at Jabalpur to Mandla.2. During the couRs.of argument learned counsel for the parties submitted th...
Phop Singh Vs. Guddi Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
CRR.No.1866/2012 Criminal Revision No.1866/2012 23.1.2013 Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the applicants. Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. As prayed, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicants have preferred the present revision against the order dated 26.6.2012 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore in criminal appeal No.171/2012, whereby he took the cognizance of appeal against the judgment dated 23.1.2012 passed by the JMFC, Budhni, District Sehore in criminal case No.612/2011, in which acquittal was directed against the applicants for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously considered that provisions of section 372 of the Cr.P.C.are having over-riding effect over the provisions of section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C.If the beginning of section ...
Bharat Prasad Vs. M.P. State Co-operative Oil Seed Grovers Federation ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
-1- W.P.No.4131/2011(s) 23/1/2013 Shri Aniruddha Waghmare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for respondents. Placing reliance on the decision dated 16.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.2791/2005(s) (Ravindra Lele V. M.P.State Cooperative Oil Seed Grovers Federation Ltd and otheRs.learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in the instant petition is similarly placed as said Ravindra Lele. It is urged, that though Writ Appeal No.201/2009 is preferred against the order dated 16.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2791/2005(S) ; the operation of said order has not been stayed. It is accordingly contended that similar benefit as given to Ravindra Lele (supra) be extended to the petitioner ,i.e, grant of seniority from initial date of appointment and not from the date when his services were absorbed with the M.P.State Cooperative Oil Seed Growers Federation Ltd,. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection if respondents are directed to c...
Sunil Verma Vs. Smt. Seema Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
CRR.No.955/2012 Criminal Revision No.955/2012 23.1.2013 Shri Aniruddha Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K.Gangrade, counsel for the respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 3.4.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge of Family Court, Bhopal in M.J.C.No.417/2011 whereby the interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- was granted to the respondent No.1 and interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- was granted to the respondent No.2 for each month. It was also directed that the maintenance granted by the Family Court, Ujjain in civil suit No.174-A/2011 will be adjusted. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that looking to the dearness of the present days, sufficient amount is required to maintain a woman and her child and therefore, amount of interim maintenance granted by the trial Court appears to be appropriate. It was also considered by the tria...
Ram Krishna Vs. Smt. Jyoti Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5307 o23. 01.2013 Shri Abhay Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. In compliance of the earlier order records of both the courts below have been received. The petitioner's counsel is heard on the question of admission. ORDER The petitioner- applicant husband has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by the order dated 12.3.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Katni in Criminal Revision No.158/2011 affirming the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katni in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.60/09, whereby allowing the application of the respondents, the wife and son of the applicant filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, the applicant has been directed to pay sum of maintenance Rs.1500 per month to respondent No.1 while Rs.500 per month to respondent no.2. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view his arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the record of both the courts below. After perusing such rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »