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.
Manoj Kumar Uikey Vs. Smt. G.B. Rashmi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :321. 2012 Manot Kumar Uikey versus Smt. G.B.Rashmi 09.01.2013. Shri G.S.Uddey for the applicant. Shri Yogesh Dhande for the non-applicant. Keeping in view the order passed by the appellate authority namely Collector, Dindori, as contained in Annexure R/1 dated 3.12.2012, deciding the appeal filed by the applicant, I see no reason to proceed further in the matter. Even though there is some delay in deciding the matter, accepting the apology submitted by the non-applicant, this application is disposed of. In case, applicant has any grievance in the matter, he is granted liberty to assail the same afresh in accordance with law. For the present, in view of the above, finding no case for initiating action for contempt, the non-applicant is discharged from the proceedings and the application disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Mukund Deshbhratar Vs. Smt. Bharti Deshbharatar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Mukund Deshbhratar versus Smt. Bharti Deshbhratar Writ Petition No.496 9. 1.2013: Shri Y.M.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the FiRs.Additional Judge Family Court, Bhopal rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1(2) r/w Section 151 CPC and rejecting prayer for summoning 5 witnesses for examination, this writ petition is filed. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife having being married at Bhopal on 10.7.2001. Petitioner has filed the proceedings seeking annulment of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and he has raised various grounds assailing activities of the respondent. He has treated with cruelty and has made certain allegations with regard to character of respondent. After issues were framed to substantiate his contention petitioner moved an application in question Annexure P-2 and he sought for examination of various witnesses. The witness to be examined...
Ajay Shrivastava Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :28. 2013 Ajay Shrivastava 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.15186/2012, 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...
Dr. Anjalika Chaturvedi Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :33. 2013 Dr. Anjika Chaturvedi 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.15179/2012, 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...
Anil Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
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.2147/2012 Anil VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri L.N.Sakle, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 9th day of January, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 146, 147 of Indian Railways Act, 1989 by the learned Special Railway Magistrate, Khandwa in criminal case No.508/2006 vide judgment dated 9.8.2012 and fine of Rs.600/- was imposed for each count. The criminal appeal No.155/2012 filed by the applicant was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present ...
Mohd. Harun Ansari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.NO.295/2012 09.01.2013. Shri Brijesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.6. Challenging the order dated 14-12-2011(Annexure P-2) passed by the Chairpeson of the State Transport Authority, this writ petition has been filed. A reciprocal agreement was entered between the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of U.P.in the matter of plying vehicles on the route Mahoba to Chandla via Laundi, Jyoraha or via Laundi, Patha. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the inter state agreement in question does not specify the route by which the vehicle is to be plied correctly and therefore, the petitioners represented for clarification and when nothing was done, he approached this court by filing a writ petition and in the said writ petition an order was passed on 23-09-2011directing the competent authority to decide the matter. The competent authority has decided the ...
Mst. Fatima Bi Vs. Vidhya Sadhna Samiti, Waraseoni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Mst. Fatima Bi & ORS.versus Vidhya Sadhna Samiti & Anr. Writ Petition No.21783 9. 1.2013: Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri A.S.Jha, learned Senior Advocate with Shri B.N.Prasad, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Challenging an order dated 7.12.2012 passed by IInd Additional District Judge Balaghat interfering with an injunction granted by the trial court, this writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 is a society and is running a school in Waraseoni, District Balahat, they filed a suit in question for declaration and injunction. It was the case of plaintiff/respondent that the Vidhya Mandir Higher Secondary School is functioning in the disputed area. The property is situated in Ward No.14 and land measuring 0.40 dec hectare is situated in Kh. No.246 Plot No.26/2 which was purchased by plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 28.1.1992 from one Smt. Am...
Rajabhaiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Criminal Revision No.2266/2012 09.01.2013 Shri S.P.Verma, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on admission. The applicants by this revision have challenged the judgment dated 22.9.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panna in Criminal Appeal No.103/2011 whereby the conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 20.5.2011 was set aside and it was directed that Dr. S.K.Yadav (PW-9) be again re-examined and thereafter the case be decided on merits. The facts relating to the present revision are that the victim was Bhau Prasad in the case and in the medical report Ex.P-8 his name was to be mentioned as Bhau Prasad S/o Chunnilal. Due to mistake Dr. S.K.Yadav (PW-9) has stated in his deposition that he examined the victim Maha Prasad. He told the name of the victim to be Maha Prasad instead of Bhau Prasad, therefore an objection was raised by the applicants before the appellate Court. The appellate Court ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mastram Singh Gour
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Review Petition No :694. 2012 State of MP and others versus Mastram Singh Gour 09.01.2013. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the applicants. Shri M.R.Verma for the non-applicant. This application has been filed for review/recall of an order passed by this Court on 12.12.2011, in W.P.No.20928/2011(S).The said writ petition was disposed of in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o. Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.and Others in W.P.No.6773/2006, decided on 26.4.2007. However, not from the application filed by the applicants, it is seen that the matter pertains to recovery of increment already granted to the non-applicant. Non-applicant was an employee of the Home Department and the question of recovery of the increment granted, which was said to be improperly fixed, was involved in the matter and the petition has been disposed of applying the principle of Smt. Prerna (supra) in an incorrect manner. There is an error apparent on th...
Ram Niwas Saket Vs. Rajababu Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1 Conc. No.395/2011 Ram Niwas Saket Rajababu Singh & another 9.1.2013 Shri D.S.Chouhan, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, GA for respondents. This application is filed for initiating contempt proceedings against respondents alleging disobedience of the order dated 6.10.2010 in Writ Appeal No.954/2010 by which following directions were issued:- In view of the aforesaid submissions, we dispose of this appeal, at this stage, with a direction that copy of the complaint along with connected documents, if any, available in the department related to the complaint made against the appellant, shall be provided to the appellant within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The appellant shall submit his reply to show cause within a period of two weeks thereafter. A reply has been filed in which it is stated that all the documents in respect of alleged complaint against petitioner were supplied to the petitioner alongwith Annexure R/1. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- Next ›
- Last »