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.
Dr. Gayatri Singh Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :24. 2013 Dr. Gayatri Singh 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.15190/2012, 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...
Nandlal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR M.Cr.C.No.11857/2010 Nandlal Patel -versus State of M.P.and another PRESENT : Hon. M.A.Siddiqui,J. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State. Shri L.S.Patel, Advocate for respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER RESERVED ON 14.12.2012 ORDER PASSED ON 09.01.2013 ORDER This petition has been filed u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the FIR dated 12.10.2012 registered at Police Station Bandri District Sagar u/s 304 and 498-A of I.P.C., against the petitioner through crime No.226/2010. (2) In short the facts of the case are that Rukmani who was a teacher married the petitioner on 12.2.2007 in a temple after their love affair, against the wishes of her father respondent No.2,Munnilal Kushwaha and she was residing with the petitioner as his wife....
Essu @ Yusuf Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cri. Appeal No.1214/1997 Essu alias Yusuf, aged about 18 years, son of Esmail, Resident of Purana Bazaar No.2, Distt. Damoh Appellant vs. State of M.P., through Harijan Kalyan Prakoshth, Kotwali Damoh, Distt. Damoh Respondent .. Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, P.L. for respondent-State. JUDGMENT (9/1/13) The appellant stands convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act) and respectively sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- & in default, to suffer S.I. for 1 month. Corresponding judgment dated 21.5.1997 passed by Special Judge (under the Act), Damoh, in Special Case No.149/96 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.2. Prosecution story may briefly be narrated thus (i) On 14/6/1993, at about 11.30 a.m., the prosecutrix (PW2), an ...
Dr.[Mrs.] Pratima Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :23. 2013 Dr (MRS.Pratima Choudhary 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.15201/2012, 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 ...
Dr. Preeti Upadhyay Vs. Dr. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc. Case No :34. 2013 Dr. Preeti Upadhyay 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.15199/2012, 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 C...
Shri Suresh Kumar Mewada Vs. Uco Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.No.346/2013 09/01/2013 Shri Surendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent/Bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, this writ petition has been filed. From the records, it is seen that the proceeding are already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. I see no reason to interfere into the matter, merely because the presiding officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal is on leave. The Presiding Officer is on leave only upto 15.1.2013 and, therefore, no interference is called for. Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available in the proceedings already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Ram Shankar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Writ Petition No :21611. 2012 Ram Shankar Tiwari versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.09.01.2013. Shri Mukesh Mishra for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. The application filed by the petitioner before Collector, Damoh for reference of the question of payment of compensation by the District Judge under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is still pending and the District Collector has not passed any order on the said application. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that respondent No.4 District Collector shall take up the application filed by the petitioner for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act Annexure P/3, and pass appropriate orders on the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
State of M.P. and ors Vs. Alok Kumar Lohia and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.7313/2002 Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Vs. Board of Revenue and others W.P. No.27452/2003 State of M.P. and another Vs. Alok Kumar Lohia and others Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. W.P. No.7313/2002 Shri P. N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State Government. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the private respondents. W.P. No.27452/2003 Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioners. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri P. N. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( 8.01.2013 ) As challenge in both these petitions are made to an order dated 2.12.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience the documents available and the pleadings in ...
General Manager (Personnel Dept.) Vs. N.R. Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
M.C.C.No :1498. 2012 General Manager versus N.R.Verma & otheRs.09.01.2013. Shri J.K.Bhattacharya for the petitioner. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.13804/2012, which was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order passed on 6.12.2012. The default is attributed to some lapse in the office of the counsel. The application is supported by affidavit of the counsel and I see no reason to disbelieve the same. Accordingly, the application is allowed and W.P.No.13804/2012 is restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the Appropriate Bench. Application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Santosh Shriwas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.No.14335/2012 09/01/2013 Shri Abhay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Challenging the order dated 30th of July, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate Chindwara directing the petitioner to be removed from the District of Chhindwara, Narsinghpur, Seoni, Betul and Hoshangabad in exercise of powers conferred upon the District Magistrate under Section 6 read with Section 5 of the M.P.Rajya Surksha Adhiniyam 1990, this writ petition has been filed. Referring to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-P2 dated 19.3.2012 and the grounds, which form the basis of externment of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that five criminal cases are referred to in the show cause notice. All the cases pertain to the period prior to 2005 and, therefore, taking action on the basis of such stale cases, is unsustainable. Even though, notices have been issued to the respondents, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- Next ›
- Last »