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.
Smt. Sangeeta Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
1 Cr.R. No.946 of 2012 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.946/2012 Smt. Sangeeta Chaturvedi. -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Prakash Upadhyaya, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 8th day of January, 2013) This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant against the order dated 9.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in ST No.99/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 were framed against the applicant.2. The brief facts of the case relating to the present revision are that the applicant had submitted an application for appointment to the post of Aaganwari Worker. In that application, she had submitted a ...
M/S R.S. Avtar Singh and Co. Vs. M/S Vindyachal Air Products Pvt. Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
W.P.No.9174/2012 & W.P.No.9022/2012 08/01/2013 W.P.No.9174/2012 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. W.P.No.9022/2012 Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the respondent. As common questions are involved in both these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, documents and pleadings available in W.P.No.9174/2012 are being referred to in this order. Petitioner herein M/s R.S.Avtar Singh & Company feels aggrieved by the order passed by the M.P.Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, which has passed certain orders under statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder. It is seen that the respondent/ Vindyachal Air Products PVT.LTD.filed a claim purported to be under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006 and...
M/S Vandana Fuels Pvt Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADAHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR W.P.No.15484/2007 M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others. W.P.No.15421/2007 M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others. W.P.No.2802/2008 M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Asstt.Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2810/2008 M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2811/08 M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt.Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2823/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2824/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt.Commissioner and others. 2 W.P.No.2825/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2826/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2827/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2828/08 M/s Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and others. W.P.No.2829/08 M/s Vandana...
Radheshyam Pagare Vs. Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Conc Case No :1859. 2011 Radheshyam Pagare versus Manot Jhalani and otheRs.08.01.2013. Shri Narendra Sharma for the applicant. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the non- applicants. Interalia contending that an order passed on 6.9.2004, in Writ Petition No.7255/2004, has not been complied with and the benefits accruing to the applicant/petitioner by virtue of an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2745/1989 (Madhukant Yadu and others versus State of MP and others).has not been extended to the applicant, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. It is the case of the applicant that on 6.9.2004, the specific direction issued by this Court was to the extent that the benefit of the order be given to the applicant also, but inspite thereof non-applicants have not granted the benefit. On notices be issued, non-applicants have filed a detailed reply and they have demonstrated before this Court that the applicant is not entitled to t...
Bhagchand Yadav @ Girdharilal Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
C.R. 427/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR CIVIL REVISION No.427 of 2011 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Applicant : Bhagchand Yadav alias Girdharilal Yadav, S/o Late Shri Darwari Lal, R/o Village Karondi, Tahsil and District Jabalpur (M.P.) Versus Respondents :1. State of M.P. through Collector, Jabalpur 2. The Tahsildar, Kamaria Circle, at present Tahsildar, Panagar, District Jabalpur 3. Daulatram Yadav, S/o Late Shri Darwari Lal Yadav, 4. Shivcharan Yadav, S/o Late Shri Darwari Lal Yadav No.3 and 4 both R/o 55-B, Karondi, Ward No.7, Jabalpur (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant by - Shri Anurag Tiwari, Advocate Respondents 1 and 2 by- Shri Rahul Jain, Govt. Advocate. Respondents 3 and 4 by - Shri Sankalp Sanghi, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (08/01/2013) This revision application has been filed at the ...
Smt.Poonam Gupta Vs. Adesh Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI MISC. APPEAL NO.2574 OF 200.Smt. Poonam Gupta and others Vs. Adesh Sahu and another Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Rakesh Jain and Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company ORDER (08/01/2013) Assailing the award dated 3/2/2007 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in Claim Case No.266/2005 on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. The appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/- on account of death of deceased Santosh Kumar Gukpta in an accident took place on 24/6/2005. It was pleaded by the claimants i.e. widow, and kids that the sole bread earner of the family has died in the accident having his earning from business, however the compens...
Ku. Richa Siddarth Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
W.P.No.3549/2012 Ku.Richa Siddharth State of M.P.& another 8.1.2013 Shri Satyam Agarwal, counsel for petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, Addl. A.G., for University. Shri Subhash Shrivastava, Assistant Registrar (Confidential) is also present. On 11.12.2012 we directed the Assistant Registrar (Confidential) to produce the sheet on which the second valuer has awarded the marks to the petitioner in respect of re- valuation. It is stated by Shri Shrivastava that immediately after last date of hearing, he intimated the Incharge of Re-valuation Section Shri R.P.Mishra and Shri V.M.Tripathi, Coordinator Semester Professional Mulyankan Cell to make available the aforesaid, but they have communicated initially that the aforesaid valuation sheets have been dumped and are not available and not Shri R.P.Mishra has proceeded on leave because of some bereavement in his family. It is also submitted that in spite of his direction the aforesaid valuation sheet has not been made available. He has also stat...
Santosh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
CRR No.1640/1999 Criminal Revision No.1640/1999 8.1.2013 Shri Ishteyaq Husain, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has challenged the order dated 10.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in S.T.No.99/1999, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC was framed against the applicant. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the deceased Mamta was the wife of one Shyam, who was also residing in the same building, where the applicant was residing in a small portion. The applicant was scolded from time to time that he was permitting the outsiders to stay in his room. On 29.8.1996, at about 4.45 a.m.in the morning, the deceased Mamta went from her room to answer the call of nature and the co-accused Pappu Lodhi, who stayed in the portion of the applicant, in that night, held her and tried to outrage her modesty by using a criminal force....
Bafati @ Makdoom Sarmad Ali Vs. Navab Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
W.P.No.3187/2008 8.1.2013: Shri Deependra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent. Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the learned District Judge, Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.3B/2007 on 6.11.2007 postponing decision on an application filed by the plaintiff- respondent to sue as an indigent person under Order 33 C.P.C., this writ petition is filed. Respondent had filed the suit in question claiming a compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- and contending that he is a indigent person an application under Order 33 was filed seeking exemption for payment of Court fees which was Rs.59,000/-. Petitioners have filed written statement and various objections particularly with regard to payment of Court fees, the learned Trial Court called for report which was received, but as there was serious dispute with regard to existence of immovable property in favour of plaintiff and as disputed questions of facts were involved, learned Court below...
Baldev Kumar Agrawal Vs. Suresh Kumar Baghrecha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Writ Petition No :15833. 2011 Baldev Kumar Agrawal versus Suresh Kumar Baghrecha 08.01.2013. Shri A.P.Shroti for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Jha, Senior Advocate, with Shri B.M.Prasad for the respondent. Challenging an interlocutory order dated 4.8.2011, passed by the court below, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17; and, under Order XIV Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this writ petition has been filed. Respondent is plaintiff and has instituted the suit for specific performance of contract. Petitioner filed reply, evidence was recorded and vide judgment and decree dated 26.6.2000, the suit was decreed. The aforesaid judgment and decree was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing F.A.No.546/2000 and a Division Bench of this Court vide order-dated 23.1.2009 Annexure P/6 allowed the FiRs.Appeal and remanded the matter back to the trial court with the following directions: 12. Consequently, appeal is allowed, impugned judgment a...
- ‹ Prev
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- Next ›
- Last »