Madhya Pradesh Court October 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. Radha Bai Vs. Shankarlal Kachhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
1 W.P. No.13693 of 2013 11.10.2013 Shri A.K.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.13 (Annex.P/1) passed by II Civil Judge-II, Jabalpur in COS No.77-A/10 whereby dismissing her application filed on the same day under order 6 rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint, her right to cross-examine the defendant's witness has been closed and the case has been fixed for final arguments on 7.8.13.2. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the impugned amendment application Anenx.P/5 and the copy of the plaint argued that such proposed amendment is necessary in the matter because in the lack of such proposed description in the pleadings of the plaint the matter could not be adjudicated effectively by the court between the parties but the trial court has dismissed the same under wrong premises and, in such prem...
Shanti Bai Vs. Suhila Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.10189 of 2012 Shanti Bai and others Vs. Sushila Bai and others Shri S.B. Shrivastava :- Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ashok Tiwari :- Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Shri Shyam Yadav, :- Counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5. None :- for respondent nos. 6 and 7. Shri Amit Sharma :- PL for respondent no.8. ORDER1110/2013 U.C. MAHESHWARI, J.1. The petitioners- applicants have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2012, (Ann. P-1), passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Gadarwara in COS No.19-A/2011 whereby their application, filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC (Ann. P-4) to implead them as a party in a suit filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 against respondent nos. 3 to 7 with impleading the respondent no.8 - State of M.P. as formal party for declaration, perpetual injunction and partition with some other reliefs, has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short ...
Gorelal Lodhi Vs. Ratanlal Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Civil Revision No.176 of 2013 Gorelal Lodhi and others Vs. Ratan Lal Lodhi and others. Shri Mukhtar Ahmad :- Counsel for the applicants. ORDER1110/2013 U.C. MAHESHWARI, J.1. The applicants - defendants nos. 1, 3 (a), 3 (b), 5 (3) and 5 (b) have filed this revision under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 11.1.2013, passed by the Xth Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.122-A/2005, whereby their application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, for dismissal of the suit for want of proper valuation and the court fee accordingly, has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent No.1 herein has filed the aforesaid suit against the applicants as well as against remaining respondents as stated in the cause title of the plaint, (Ann. P-1) for partition and some other reliefs with respect of the land described in plaint. Besides the cause title on perusing the pra...
Veerendra Kumar Sweaper Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
Cr.R.No.2096/2013 10.10.2013 Shri A.K.Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent/State. With consent, the matter is finally heard. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 3.10.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna, in Cr.A.No.142/13 whereby the judgment passed by the trial court convicting the petitioner under Sections 341 and 354 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo S.I.for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and to undergo R.I.for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- respectively, was modified to the extent that custodial sentence under Section 354 of the IPC was reduced to six months R.I.while the corresponding fine amount was enhanced to Rs.3000/-. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to challenge the convictions awarded to the petitioner. However, he prayed that the custodial sentences passed against the petitioner may be red...
Smt. Savita Soni Vs. Sanjay Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
1 M.Cr.C. No.9374 of 2012 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J Misc. Criminal Case No.9374/2012 Smt. Savita Soni. -Vs- Sanjay Soni and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Santosh Thakur, Advocate for the applicant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 10th day of October, 2013) The applicant has preferred this application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 16.4.2012 passed by the learned JMFC Sohagpur District Hoshanbad in Criminal Compliant Case No.273/2007 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that the applicant has filed a criminal complaint on 12.12.2006 before the trial Court that her marriage took place with the respondent No.1 Sanjay Soni on 6.5.2006 in a Gayatri Tem...
Raju Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
Cr.R.No.1530/2013 10.10.2013 Shri G.P.Patel, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent/State. With consent, the matter is finally heard. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 2.8.2013 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, in Cr.A.No.76/13 whereby the judgment passed by the trial court was affirmed in so far as it related to convicting the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC and sentencing him, for each of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, to undergo R.I.for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC to undergo R.I.for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to challenge the convictions awarded to the petitioner. However, he prayed that the custodial sentences passed against the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. ...
imran Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
Cr.R.No.2075/2013 10.10.2013 Shri Z.M.Shah, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. With consent, the matter is heard finally. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.9.2013 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa in Cr.A.No.141/12 whereby the judgment of the trial Court convicting the petitioners under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I.for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-each and R.I.for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, was affirmed. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction awarded to the petitioneRs.However, he prayed that the custodial sentence passed against the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone. According to him, the petitioners are in jail since 30.9.2013. In response, learned Government Adv...
Haricharan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
Cr.R.No.1827/2013 10.10.2013 Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Sameer Chile, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. With consent, the matter is finally heard. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.8.2013 passed by I Additional Judge to the court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Cr.A.No.163/13 whereby the judgment of the trial Court convicting the petitioner under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I.for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I.for three months (two counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ (two counts).respectively, was affirmed. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction awarded to the petitioner. However, he prayed that the custodial sentence passed against the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. According to him, the petitioner is in jail since 30.8.2013....
Smt. Kiran Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
1 W.P.No.18095/13. 10.10.2013. Shri M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned G.A.for the respondent No.1. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner a Government Teacher posted in some Government School Singroli has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ against the respondents for following reliefs. 1. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents to allot the house No.B-319 belong to the NCL in the name of the petitioner, in which she is already residing, in the interest of justice. 2. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel after taking me...
Virendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
1 W.P. No.5319 of 2012 10.10.2013 Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for the respondents No.1 to 4. Heard on IA No.14230/13. This is additional rejoinder in response of the additional return of the respondent/ state authorities filed in the shape of the application. The same is taken on record.2. Heard on the question of admission as well as for final disposal.3. The petitioner, an agriculturist of village Panwar Chouhanan Tola, District Sidhi has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ for the following relief :- (a) To direct the respondents to carry out the construction of canal of Gulab Sagar Canal as per the revised map and the land which has been sought to be acquired by notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. (b) To direct the respondents not to make any construction before considering the objections of the petitioner in respect of survey of land. (c ) To direc...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »