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. Uma Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Smt. Uma Dubey versus State of M.P.& Anr. R.P.No.2 7. 1.2013: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is seen that this case was wrongly disposed of in the light of order earlier passed in W.P.NO.19116/2003 (Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta versus State of M.P.& Ors.).Infact the case of petitioner was earlier decided on certain directions issued and, therefore, the subsequent order passed rejecting the claim of petitioner has to be considered and decided on merits instead of disposing it in the light of order passed in the case of Surendra Kumar Gupta. Accordingly, in disposing of the case in the light of law laid down in the case of Surendra Kumar Gupta an error has been committed by this Court, therefore, the review application is allowed. Order dated 14.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.20846/2012 is recalled, the writ petition is restored to its ori...
Dheeraj Kumar Vs. Rambharos
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
MCC No.1475/2012 (Dheeraj Kumar and another versus Rambharos and otheRs.07.01.2013 Shri J.K.Verma, learned counsel for the applicants. Heard. The applicants have filed this application seeking restoration of review petition No.515/12. It is stated that the review petition No.515/12 was listed before this court on 22.8.2012 for default and this court had granted two weeks time to the counsel for the applicants to remove the default failing which the review petition would stand automatically dismissed without reference to the court. It is stated that as the lawyers were abstaining from work, the counsel for the applicants could not note the fact of passing the peremptory order by this court as a result of which the review petition stood dismissed on lapse of two weeks from 22.8.2012 by virtue of the peremptory order and it is only when the counsel came to knot about the dismissal of the application for review on account of the peremptory order that he filed an application seeking restora...
Sudama Prasad Barman Vs. Shri Radheshyam Julaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-05-2013
1 Conc. No.1406/2012 5.2.2013 Smt. Gulab K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the order passed by the State Government as is evident from the reply filed, it is clear that the directions issued by this Court has been complied with by rejecting the claim of the petitioner. However, the anxiety of this Court is that the order in question was passed in W.P.No.8472/2006 on 12.7.2006 and the directions issued to the respondents were to decide the claim of the petitioner within four months. When nothing was done for about two yeaRs.the applicant approached this Court in Contempt Petition No.46/2008 and on 11.3.2011 this Court without initiating any action for contempt, directed the respondents to take a decision within three months. Nothing was done even at that point of time and petitioner was compelled to file this contempt application on 21.8.2012. Notices were issued on 7.9.2012 and on more than three occa...
Ujyar Singh Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Cr.A.No.116 o04. 01.2013 None for the appellant. Shri Punit Shroti, learned PL for the respondent-State. In the absence of appellant's counsel and his counsel the adjudication of this appeal on merits is not possible, hence the case is adjourned with a direction to list the same by fixing a date in the month of March 2013. The presence of the appellant before this court for such date be secured by issuing a bailable warrant of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand).Such warrant be issued positively within five days from today and the same be sent through Superintendent of Police, Seoni with a direction to execute the same under his guidance and supervision, so that the same be not returned back unserved. The case be listed accordingly. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Manoj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
CRR.No.879/2012 Criminal Revision No.879/2012 4.1.2013 Shri Manish Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 21.3.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in S.T.No.99/2012, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC were framed against the applicant. Facts of the case, relating to the present revision, are that, the deceased consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide. It is alleged against the applicant that he threatened the deceased not to indulge in second marriage. Though divorce of the deceased took place with her previous husband and therefore, the police registered a case under section 306 of IPC and submitted a charge-sheet. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, fra...
Prahlad Raidas Vs. Smt. Saroj Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
1 W.P.No.4/2013 4.1.2013 Shri D.C.Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the 9th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.19A/2011 rejection applications filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 1 and 2, Order 11 Rule 12, Order 19 Rule 1 and postponing decision on another application filed under Order 26 Rule 9, petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Inter alia contending that the property in question is an ancestral property of the petitioner's family and they have been in continuous possession for more than 17 yeaRs.the suit in question was filed claiming a decree on the basis of adveRs.possession. It was stated that the action initiated by the respondents for evicting the petitioners from the suit property is illegal. Accordingly, seeking injunction and protection of their possession and a declaration based on adveRs.possession, the suit in...
Zahoor Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Revision No. 1918/2010 Zahoor Ali Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others *** Shri Ahadulla Usmani, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer for the State Shri Shreyash Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. *** ORDER (___/01/2013) The applicant has filed this revision petition under Section 397(1) read with Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by order dated 13.10.2010 passed by X Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.123/2009 whereby the application filed by the applicant/complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for impleading the non-applicant No.4, Asif Hyder, as accused in the trial, was dismissed.2. Facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that on 21.11.2008 at 8.30 p.m. three accused persons namely, Goldi Ansari alias Amir, Javed Hyder and Asif Hyder (respondent No.4) wrongfully restrained the applicant/comp...
Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Kori
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
R.P.NO.662/09 04-01-2013 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Seeking review/recall of an order dated 11-07-2008 passed by this court in W.P.No.10881/2003, this application has been filed. It is stated by the learned counsel for petitioner that this court after taking note of recruitment rules has found the respondent as eligible for appointment and has issued necessary direction for his appointment as a Forest Guard, however, while doing so the statutory requirement of age criteria was not taken note of and therefore, there is apparent error on the face of record. Respondent's claim for appointment as Forest Guard was rejected on the ground that he is not eligible in accordance to the qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules and after hearing all the concerned, it was found by this court that the respondent fulfills the qualification and was eligible. In the earlier writ petition no such objection with regard to disentitlement of the respondent on age ...
Vishal @ Milind Gurav Vs. Smt. Sheetal Gurav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Cr.Revision No.517/2011 Vishal @ Milind Gurav Vs. Smt. Sheetal Gurav As Per : G.S.Solanki, J Shri Shivendra Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri J.N.Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent. Order reserved on :30. 10.2012 Order Passed on :4. 1.2013 ORDER 1. The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 28.2.2011 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in MJ.No.211/2010 whereby the application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent/wife has been allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month to the respondent.2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that the marriage of applicant and respondent was performed on 3.5.2009 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court along with an application for interim maintenance...
Kamal Kumar Malik Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Kamal Kumar Malik versus Union Of India & ORS.Writ Petition No.22115 4. 1.2013: Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel on advance notice for respondent No.1. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Trial Court and the FiRs.Appellate Court in rejecting application of temporary injunction filed by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though petitioner is shown to be in possession, his possession has not been protected and treating him to be an encroacher, the interim application is refused. Petitioner is found to be encroacher and it is established that he has no right to the property in question, taking note of the aforesaid interim application for temporary injunction has been refused by both the courts. The aforesaid order passed by the courts below is in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court which provides for refusing injunctio...
- ‹ Prev
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- Next ›
- Last »