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.
Sampat Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
W.P.No.19366/2012 7.1.2013: Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner met with an accident and sustained injury. As a result he raised a claim by filing an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni. The claim has been allowed and a compensation of Rs.1,20,625/- has been granted to the applicant. Challenging the award an appeal has been filed by the Insurance company namely respondent No.3 before this Court under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehecles Act. The said appeal is registered as M.A.No.1796/2012 and is still pending. However, in the pending appeal an interim order was passed on 3.9.2012 directing the Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the amount awarded. Accordingly, the insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs.70,019/-. Grievance of the petitioner is that a prayer made by the petitioner for withdrawal of the aforesaid amount has been rejected by the Court below mainly on the ground that in the interim order passed by this Court in ...
Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
WP 9696.10 Writ Petition No.9696 of 2010 (Dinesh Kumar Mishra v State of M.P.and three otheRs.07-01-2013 Shri Hemant Shrivastava with Shri Dhananjay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No.3. I.A.No.12615/2012, an application for issuance of orders and directions, is taken up for consideration. Vide said interlocutory application the petitioner seeks final disposal of the petition with a direction to the respondents/State of Madhya Pradesh to constitute the Committee headed by Principal Secretary, General Administration Department for considering the inclusion of the post of Draftsman for grant of time-scale of pay of Rs.12000-16500 with effect from 01-04-1996. The petitioner, a Draftsman (Civil) in the Water Resources Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, vide this petition seeks the following relief :- (i) To call for the relevant record pertaining to gra...
Smt. Vimla Patel Vs. Rajya Sahakari Krishi and GramIn Vikas Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Writ Petition No :11766. 2011 Smt. Vimla Patel versus Rajya Sahkari Krishi & Gramin Vikas Bank and three otheRs.07.01.2013. Shri Wajid Hyder for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Agrawal for respondents 1 and 2. Shri Ashok Tiwari for respondents 3 and 4. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that certain amount deposited by her by way of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs.are not being paid inspite of the same having matured and various requests made. On notices being issued, respondents 3 and 4 have filed reply and have stated that they are willing to make payment of the amount provided some time granted to them. Accordingly, on instructions received from respondents 2 and 3, Shri Ashok Tiwari, learned counsel, makes a statement that the entire amount of the FDRs alongwith interest shall be paid to the petitioner by the end of June, 2013. In view of the above, respondents 3 and 4 are directed to ensure that the entire amount payable to the petitioner for the FDRs.in question, which...
Kamlesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
CRR No.1820/2012 Criminal Revision No.1820/2012 7.1.2013 Shri Ashish Kurmi, counsel for the applicants. Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. Heard on I.A.No.20527/2012, an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicants have moved a revision application against the order dated 13.4.012 with delay of 51 days. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No.4 was not present on that day and initially charges were not framed but, they were framed later on. After getting the copy of the impugned order, the revision application has been filed. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that delay may be condoned. Learned Panel lawyer for the Station opposes the application. If any accused moves an application under section 317 of the Cr.P.C.and he is represented by his Advocate then, he cannot get any advantage of his not appearance. It is apparent that the applicants Kamlesh, Manmohan and Pahlad were present at ...
R.B.Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
M.Cr.C.No.115/2013 07.01.2013 Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri P.K.Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. Call for the case diary. Also heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A.No.134/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.209/2012 registered at Police Station Chitrangi, Distt. Singrauli for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a Sub-Engineer on contract basis was never appointed and posted in a particular village where the said offence is said to be committed. The applicant has no role to play in drawing or disbursing any money from the Panchayat fund. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application. Looking to the aforesaid, till the next date of listing, the applicant be not apprehen...
Lakkhu @ Lakhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Criminal Revision No.1661/2012 07.01.2013 Shri Vikas Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State. Heard on admission. By this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 16.7.2012 passed in ST No.31/2011 by the FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh by which the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.was dismissed. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the relevant documents, it appears that the applicant has moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.which was dismissed on 21.12.2011 and no revision etc.was filed against that order. Thereafter again a fresh application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.was moved, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Such type of application cannot be accepted, if there is no sufficient reason shown in the application for recalling a witness. Mahesh (PW-5) was examined before the trial Court and app...
Smt. Dhanvanti Bai Vs. Rambharose
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
W.P.NO.21555/2012 07-01-2013 Shri Mukund Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order dated 14-09-2012, passed by the 6th Civil Judge Class I Bhopal in Civil Suit No.473- A/2012, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, this writ petition has been filed. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition the facts that have come on record go to show that the court below found that for deciding the question involved in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC apart from the legal grounds raised certain factual aspect with regard to res judicata and delay are also to be taken note of and as question involved on the main question of law and fact, the court has refused to interfere into the matter in these proceedings under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The discretion exercised by the court and the reasons given for not interfering into the matter at this stage is reasonable and discretion exercised cannot be termed as...
Bharat Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Criminal Revision No.2051/2012 07.01.2013 Shri Amod Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State. None for the respondent No.2. Since the charge sheet was filed by the police in the present case, and therefore for considering the present revision, the respondent No.2 is not a necessary party. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC (two counts) vide judgment dated 31.12.2011 passed by the learned JMFC Dindori (Smt. Rashmi Balter) in Criminal Case No.603/2010 and sentenced for till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.800/-. The criminal appeal No.50/12 preferred by the applicant was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori vide judgment dated 6.9.2012. For disposal of the present revision, the facts of the case are, in short, that on 16.1.2010 at about 5:45 PM in the evening the complainant Mad...
Anil Kumar JaIn Vs. Ajay Gadam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI MISC. APPEAL NO.4503 OF 201.Anil Kumar Jain Vs. Ajay Gadam and others Shri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rakesh Jain and Shri Satish Chourasia, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company MISC. APPEAL NO.4518 OF 201.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar Jain and others Shri T.S. Lamba, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1. ORDER (07/01/2013) M.A. No.4503/2011 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement while M.A. No.4518/2011 has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the quantum. Both these appeals are arising out of the award dated 12/8/2011 passed by 10th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Bhopal in Claim Case No.1668/2009 whereby in a case of permanent disability received to the claimant an amount of Rs.7,61,547/- has been awarded.2. The aforementioned amount has bee...
Miss. Nikita Gupta Vs. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
1...W.P.No.17054 o07. 01.2013 Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, Counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Sanjeev Mishra, Counsel for respondent No.3. Petitioner has sought following reliefs :- 1. Issue a writ and call the entire records relating to present case.2. Restrain the respondents from cancelling the provisional admission for MBA granted to petitioner and further direct the respondent No.1 and 3 to continue her provisional admission looking into the facts and circumstances of the case.3. Any other relief which this Hon. Court may deemed fit and proper may kindly be granted together with the cost of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that he has received instruction from the respondents that the result of the petitioner for BBA 6th Semester would be declared today itself. 6th Semester is the final Semester of the course. The relief of the petitioner is in respect of declaration of the result of petitioner of BBA final year, to which aforesaid statement has been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- Next ›
- Last »