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.
Sujit Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1 sujit kumar versus state of m.p.W.P.No.14990/2012 9.1.2013: Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenging the order dated 5.6.2012 passed by the District Magistrate directing externment of the petitioner from District Chhindwara and the order Annexure P/1 dated 21.8.2012 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. A show cause notice Annexure P/2 dated 28.5.2011 was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate concerned, exercising his powers under Section 6 of the M.P.Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the district in question. Matter was considered and thereafter vide order dated 5.6.2012 Annexure P/4 petitioner was directed to be removed from the District of Chhindwara. Appeal having been filed, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Learned cou...
Shivsharan Singh Vs. Smt. Kailash Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Writ Petition No :20128. 2012 Shivsharan Singh versus Smt. Kailash Devi and others 09.01.2013. Shri P.S.Gaharwar for the petitioner. Challenging an order, interlocutory in nature, passed by the learned court below on 16.11.2012, allowing the application filed by respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and permitting the respondents widowed ladies, to file the suit as indigent person, petitioner has filed this writ petition. The only singular contention advanced at the time of hearing was that an inquiry as contemplated under sub-rule 1(a) of Order XXXIII CPC, has not been conducted. A perusal of the provisions of Order XXXIII Rule 1(a) CPC goes to show that the court may either call for a report of inquiry or conduct the inquiry itself. In the present case, the Court conducted the inquiry itself, examined the witnesses produced by the parties and decided the matter. Even otherwise, the order in question is an interlocutory order permit...
Chandrika Prasad Soni Alias Chandrika Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1308/2012 Chandrika Prasad Soni @ Chandrika Soni & another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri H.S.Dubey, counsel for the applicants. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 8th day of January, 2013) The applicants have challenged the order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa in S.T.No.143/2007, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 392, 397 and 120-B of IPC were framed against the applicants.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 23.4.2007, the complainant Ram Balak Soni was going from his jewellery shop at village Dhera to his house situated at village Tamri by a motorcycle. He had a bag on his mo...
Sharda Prasad Soni Vs. Anil Kumar Dubey and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
C.R. No.566/2004 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava C.R. No.566/2004 APPLICANT/ Sharda Prasad Soni PLAINTIFF s/o Shri Mata Prasad Soni, R/o Ranjhi Basti, Jabalpur (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Anil Kumar Dubey s/o Shri Moolchand Dubey 2. Rajeev Dubey s/o Shri Moolchand Dubey 3. Dinesh Kumar Dubey s/o Shri Moolchand Dubey Residents of Ranjhi Basti Near Mastana Chowk, Ranjhi, Jabalpur (M.P.) 4. The Collector, Jabalpur Authorised Officer under M.P. Nagariya Kshetro Ke Bhoomihino Adhiniyam5. Smt. Reeta Bai w/o Shri Parasnath Soni, R/o Ranjhi Basti, Jabalpur District Jabalpur (M.P.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Saket Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER { 09-01-2013 } This revision application has been filed against the order dated 4.3.2004 passed by learned ...
Jagbali Bais Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Jagbali Prasad Bais versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18889 9. 1.2013: Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Shri Alok Hoonka, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order dated 14.8.2012 passed by the Collector Singrauli, rejecting prayer made by petitioner for reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge concerned. The question involved in this writ petition with regard to jurisdiction of the Collector to reject the prayer made in an application under Section 18 is already considered and decided by this Court in various cases and it has been held by this Court that Collector has no jurisdiction to reject the application under Section 18, it has to be placed before the appropriate court and it is for the court to pass orders on the said application. In this regard Shri B.K.Bais, has brought to the notice...
Dr. Marjiya Arif Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :31. 2013 Smt. Marjiya Arif versus Dr. Sanjay Tiwari and another. 09.01.2013. Shri Praveen Chourasia for the applicant. Shri Mahendra Pateriya with Shri S.K.Chaturvedi for the non-applicants. Interalia contending that the directions issued by this Court on 14.9.2012, in W.P.No.15187/2012, has not been complied with within a period of two months as directed, this writ petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and on a perusal of the records it is seen that after orders were passed on 14.9.2012, certified copy of the order was prepared and according to the documents Annexure C/1, counsel for the applicant communicated the order to the Registrar on 28.12.2012. Neither in the body of the contempt petition not in the documents filed, there is any averment or material adduced to show that the order was ever communicated to the non-applicants prior to 28.12.2012. If the order was communicated on 28.12.2012, then the period of two months fixed by this Cou...
Shambhoo Dayal Tiwari Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Shambhoo Dayal Tiwari versus Branch Manager & Anr. Writ Petition No.18287 9. 1.2013: Shri T. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for intervener. Petitioner is brother of late Shiv Kumar Tiwari and the intervener Smt. Shakuntala Bai is the daughter of Late Shiv Kumar Tiwari, it is seen that during his life time Shri Shiv Kumar Tiwari was having a saving bank account bearing account No.10797360608 with the State Bank of India, Nepanagar Branch and in the said account certain amount were lying in the credit of the account holder. Shri Shiv Kumar Tiwari has died on 7.5.2011 and after his death petitioner claiming to be the brother and the only legal heir of Shri Shiv Kumar Tiwari made a claim before the Bank for payment of the amount lying in the account of Shri Shiv Kumar Tiwari. At the same time intervener claiming to be daughter of the deceased also staked her claim to the amount ...
ikhlaque Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.NO.257/13 09.01.2013. Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Inter alia contending that the complaint made by the petitioner against respondent no.6 for entering his house illegally and making loot is not being inquired into this writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the police authorities to inquire into the complaint made by the petitioner against the respondent no.6 and register the FIR. In this regard, it is seen that petitioners daughter-in-law committed suicide, respondent no.6 is father of the deceased lady. On the basis of statement of respondent no.6 a case has been registered against the petitioner and his son under section 304 IPC and the matter is pending. Petitioners son is still in custody and the petitioners wife has been released on bail vide order dated 07-11-12 passed by this court. not the grievance of the petitioner is that about 15 to 20 days back, respondent no.6 and his son entered the house of the petitioner and committed loot of...
Dr. Beena Kapoor Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :25. 2013 Dr. Beena Kapoor versus Dr. Sanjay Tiwari and another. 09.01.2013. Shri Praveen Chourasia for the applicant. Shri Mahendra Pateriya with Shri S.K.Chaturvedi for the non-applicants. Interalia contending that the directions issued by this Court on 14.9.2012, in W.P.No.15194/2012, has not been complied with within a period of two months as directed, this writ petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and on a perusal of the records it is seen that after orders were passed on 14.9.2012, certified copy of the order was prepared and according to the documents Annexure C/1, counsel for the applicant communicated the order to the Registrar on 28.12.2012. Neither in the body of the contempt petition not in the documents filed, there is any averment or material adduced to show that the order was ever communicated to the non-applicants prior to 28.12.2012. If the order was communicated on 28.12.2012, then the period of two months fixed by this Cour...
Jai Singh Shekhawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
WRIT PETITION No.206/20109. 01.2013 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior Counsel with Shri Kunal Thakre, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State. Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned Counsel for the intervener. By the consent of parties, I.A.for intervention in the writ petition is allowed. After arguing the matter for sometime, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the reply of the show cause notice. Prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition with the aforesaid liberty is allowed. In the circumstances, the Collector may take a decision on the show cause notice and the reply in accordance with law within a period of two weeks after hearing all concerned. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Certified copy as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge Skc...
- ‹ Prev
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- Next ›
- Last »