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 Rakhi Yadav Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Writ Petition No :5406. 2010 Smt. Rakhi Yadav versus Smt. Sushila Devi Yadav and others 08.01.2013. Shri Abhishek Gulati for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Agrawal and Shri Amit Seth, counsel for respondent No.5. Shri Pushpendra Kaurav for respondents 6 and 7. Challenging an interlocutory order-dated 28.1.2010, passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No.46-A/2006, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and, under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner claims to be a member of a joint family and the dispute in question pertains to the property in question situated in Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal. Respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs and have filed the suit for declaration and injunction and various grounds are raised in the said suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues have been framed and plaintiffs evidence is also over. However, after...
Smt. Puniya Bai Vs. Deepak Meena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI MISC. APPEAL NO.277 OF 201.Smt. Puniya Bai Vs. Deepak Meena (minor) and another Shri J.L. Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondents, though served and even after issuance of SPC for today. ORDER (08/01/2013) This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded by the 12th additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal vide award dated 31/10/2009 passed in Claim Case No.1136/2008.2. On 14/1/2008 at about 5.30 p.m. when the injured was coming back along grant-daughter from a temple, tractor not M.P.04-M-9283 Mahendra D.I.B.-275 driven rashly and negligently by the driver dashed her thereby her back and femur bones were fractured to which she has received permanent disability as appears from the certificate of permanent disability Ex.P/14 due to shortening of leg by 5 cm on account of injuries received to her. The Tribunal found the accident by ...
M/S Gemini Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Asstt.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...
Jawahar Lal Dahiya Vs. Surya Pratap Singh Parihar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Jawahar Lal Dahiya versus Surya Pratap Singh Parihar & ORS.Conc. No.1379 8. 1.2013: Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 4. On 5.5.2011 in W.P.No.14526/2009(s) the competent authority was directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization in accordance to law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC, 1 and thereafter took a decision. not respondent No.4 has rejected the claim of petitioner and the claim is rejected merely on the ground that sanctioned post are not available. Respondent No.4 has referred the matter to respondent Nos.1 & 2 for sanction or approval for creation of post, but in the absence of sanction/approval being granted claim for regularization cannot be considered. In the original writ petition the only direction given was to consider the case of petitioner for regularization thereafter no direction was given to respondent No.1 & 2 ...
The State of M.P. Vs. Vaman Rao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2112 OF 199.State of Madhya Pradesh Versus. Vaman Rao For appellant/ : Shri Gitesh Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer. State For Respondent/ : Shri G.R. Deshmukh, Advocate. JUDGMENT (Oral) (08.01.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. On behalf of the appellant/State of M.P. this appeal is preferred under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.2.1997, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Multai, Betul in Criminal Case No.865/92 whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the charge of Section 498-A of I.P.C.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that, the wife of respondent namely; Lata Bai (PW-1), who long before got married with the respondent, lodged the report at Police Station Amla, contending that on 6.7.1992, the respondent in her life time by concealing the fact of earlier marriage, has remarried with some other woman and pursuant to that, she was sent to her pare...
Makhan Singh Gautam Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Writ Petition No. 474 Of 2003 8.1.2013 Shri Sachin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent State. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. Initially when this petition was filed in 2003, the same was directed against the order dated 26.7.2003; whereby respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted to the pot of Deputy Ranger in Forest Department. Direction was also sought to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the post of Deputy Ranger with all consequential benefits. That, a reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was filed on 29.4.2004 stating therein that the petitioner was considered by the departmental promotion committee convened on 1.7.2003 but was No. recommended because of wanting merit visavis respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is further submitted that su...
M/S Vandana Fuels Pvt.Ltd Vs. Asst.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...
M/S Shree Sharda Domestic Fuels Prop.M/S Vs. the Assistant Commissione ...
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...
P.C.C. Construction Vs. Abhay Traders
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
M.Cr.R.No.7506/2011 M.Cr.C.No.7506/2011 8.1.2013 Shri Vivek Rusia, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Y.K.Gupta, counsel for the respondent. The respondent Ram Kumar Gupta is also present in person. He is duly identified by his counsel. His presence is marked. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are giving two different demand drafts of Rs.3 Lacs and Rs.1 Lac respectively to the respondent and therefore, the criminal complaint pending before the trial Court for trial of offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act may be quashed. The respondent agrees that if he gets a sum of Rs.4 Lacs then, he is not required to prosecute the criminal complaint. Looking to the willingness of the parties, both the demand drafts be handed over to the respondent with the direction that the criminal complaint case No.205/2010, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna is hereby quashed, according to the compromise done by the parties. With...
Anshumani Varma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Anshumani Verma versus State of M.P.& ORS.Conc. No.1104 8. 1.2013: None for the petitioner. This contempt application is pending since 2009. Default pointed out by the office in the year 2009 has not been rectified, even though time is being granted on various occasion since 27.11.2009. For more than 3 years the matter is pending and till date even notices have not been issued due to default on the part of applicant. In view of above after period of 3 years I see no reason to initiate action for contempt accordingly this application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of remedy available under law in case he has any grievance still subsisting. With the aforesaid liberty the petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- Next ›
- Last »