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.
Uttam Chandra and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
1 Criminal Appeal No.2648/1998 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2648/1998 Uttam Chandra and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh For the appellant no.1. : Ms. Savita Koshti, Advocate. For the appellant no.2 : Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Som Mishra. For the respondent/State: Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor. JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 10th day of January, 2013) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.9.1998 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in ST No.160 of 1996 whereby the appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of I.P.C and sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- respectively. One month's simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine for each count.2. The prosecutions case in ...
Neeraj Chipade Vs. Smt. Gouri Chipade
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
CRR No.1291/2012 Criminal Revision No.1291/2012 10.1.2013 Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri Manish Tiwari, counsel for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 30.4.2011 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, whereby an interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m.was granted against the applicant. The main grievance of the applicant is that the Family Court has presumed his income to be Rs.18,000/- p.m., whereas he does not have such an income. 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 at present an interim order has been passed by the trial Court and therefore, the applicant has an opportunity to adduce the evidence from his side. The applicant is hiding his actual salary and therefore, he is not showing his pay slip even before this Court and therefore, if it is ...
Jagannath Suryavanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
WP 240.07 Writ Petition No.240 of 2007 (Jagannath Suryavanshi and another v. State of M.P.and five otheRs.10-01-2013 Shri Vikas Mahavar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri V.P.Pandey, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4/State. None for the respondent No.5 & 6. Heard. PetitioneRs.members of 8th Battalion, Special Armed Force, vide this writ petition seek direction to respondents to accord them out of turn promotion under Rule 56(3) of Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973. The rule whereupon the directions are sought stipulates :- 56. Promotions and Examinations :- (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3)Notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, the Deputy Inspector General of Police may promote a constable to the rank of a Head Constable, and with the approval of the Inspector-General of Police a Head Constable to the post of Platoon Commander, who has distinguished himself in anti-dacoity operations, law and order situations, or ...
Devendra Trading Company Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADAHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR W.P.No.1230/2008 Devendra Trading Company Vs. State of M.P. and others. DB: Honble Mr.Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti & Honble Mr. Justice M.A. Siddiqui ____________________________________________ Shri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Govt. Adv.for respondents. ____________________________________________ ORDER (Passed On 10.01.2013) AS PER : KRISHN KUMAR LAHOTI,J.Petitioner has sought following reliefs : (i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to treat the sale in question as inter-state sale; (ii) To declare that levy, assessment and collection of tax under the State Act is unauthorized, without jurisdiction and the same falls within the purview of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; (iii) To direct the Respondents to refund the excess amount of tax collected from the Petitioner under the guise of Value Added Tax and to accept C-Forms submitted by Petitioner; (iv) Any other relief/relie...
Abhay Rajan Saxena Vs. Ketan Mehta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI MISC. APPEAL NO.3219 OF 201.Abhay Rajan Saxena Vs. Ketan Mehta and others Shri Praveen Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Shobhitditya, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Smt. P.L. Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.4. ORDER (10/01/2013) This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by defendant No.4/appellant, recent purchaser, against the order dated 19/10/2012 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.577-A/2008 restraining to raise construction and to alienate the suit property.2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants praying that the sale deed dated 24/8/1987 executed by the Vice President of defendant No.3-society in favour of defendant No.1 be declared illegal, null and void. It has fur...
Dr. Neena V. Patel Vs. Smt. Jyotsnaben P. Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Writ Petition No. 1314 Of 2012 10.1.2013 Shri V.S. Shroti, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Priyankush Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akshat Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Heard. Order dated 10.1.2012 passed by VI Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Probate Case No. 7/2005 is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide impugned order the Trial Court while entertaining an interlocutory application filed by respondent No. 1/applicant directed for impleadment of Public in General as respondent in the Probate case. The probate case, at the instance of respondent No. 1/applicant, wife of late P.B. Patel, is for grant of probate based on Will dated 23.12.1991 of late P.B. Patel. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are daughters and son of late P...
Anil Kumar Masih Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.8772/2009 Anil Kumar Masih Petitioner Versus State of M.P. and another Respondents For the petitioner : Shri Surya Pratap Rai For the respondent no.1 : : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, for the State. For the respondent no.2 : Shri P.R.Bhave, Senior Counsel with Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, Advocate. Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Honble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe. ORDER ( 10/01 /2013) PER: Rajendra Menon, J.Challenging the order dated 5th September, passed by the competent authority compulsorily retiring the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 42(1) (B) of the M.P. Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1976 read with Fundamental Rules 56(2)(A), the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected by the Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of Civil Judge Class-II in May, 1981 and was appointed on 03-11-1981 and after appointment was posted as Additi...
Ganesh Prasad Sen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
W.A.No.1256/2012 11.01.2013 Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General waives notices on behalf of respondents No.1 to 6. On payment of Process Fee within a week, issue notices to the respondent No.7 by registered post. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. It is contended that in similar petitions wherein the similar orders passed by the Collector were challenged, learned Single Judge has passed an interim order in the following manner:- Considering the fact that the power of suo motu revision has been exercised by the Collector, Satna after a period of more than three years and action is taken without hearing the petitioner, prima facie impugned order dated 2.7.2012 seems to be unsustainable. In view of the above, operation of the order dated 2.7.2012 passed by the Collector, Satna as contained in Annx.P/6 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. In th...
Jagdish Singh Vs. Puranlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Second Appeal No.347 / 1997 Jagdish Singh Versus Puranlal _______________________________________________ Shri V.S.Shroti, learned senior counsel with Shri Amit Nagpal, for the appellant/plaintiff. None for respondent. _______________________________________________ PRESENT : Honble Shri R.S. Jha, J.: JUDGMENT (10-01-2013) The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal assailing the legal validity of the judgment and decree dated 1-3-1997 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Damoh, in C.A. No.12-B/1996, wherein the judgment and decree dated 11-7-1996 passed by the 4th Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Damoh, in C.S.No.4-B of 1995 has been affirmed.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,720/-. The appellant/plaintiff is a money lender duly holding a licence in that regard under the provisions of M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to a...
Wasiullah Khan Vs. Shri M.P. Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Conc. Case No :1277. 2012 Wasiullah Khan and others versus Shri M.P.Shukla and another 10.01.2013. Smt. Seema Agrawal for the applicants. Shri Akhil Singh for the non-applicant. Interalia contending that orders passed by this Court on 28.11.2011, in Writ Petition No.13313/2007, has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. On 28.11.2011, the order passed by this Court reads as under: In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions: Maintaining status quo as is existing today in the matter, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti respondent No.5 and respondent No.2 shall supply to each of the petitioners a copy of the enquiry report and ask them to show cause as to what they have to say in the matter. On the same being done, each of the petitioners will submit their reply/explanation within a period of 15 days thereof and on the same being done, respondents shall pass fresh orders after adverting to consider the def...
- ‹ Prev
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- Next ›
- Last »