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.
Harish Patel Vs. Sanjay Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
Writ Petition No.16943/2013 08.10.2013 Shri D.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. Petitioner plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 2.9.2013, (P-1).passed by 12th Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal whereby considering the application of respondent No.5- defendant filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, the petitioner has been directed to make advolerum valuation of the suit on the value of the alleged sale deed, (Ann. P-3) executed by the respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 and pay the court fee accordingly failing which the suit may be dismissed without extension of any further opportunity to correct the valuation and payment of the court fee accordingly. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record alongwith the impugned order argued that plaintiff accompanied with respondent Nos.1 and 2 had purchased the aforesaid land...
Badri Prasad Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10758/2012 08.10.2013 Shri Prakash Gupta, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State. Shri D.K.Sharma, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.Pawai, District Panna in Criminal Case No.468/09, whereby the charges were framed against the respondent Nos.2 to 7, but no charge of the offence under Section 307 of IPC was framed. The facts of the case, in short are that, the respondent Nos.2 to 7 assaulted the victim/applicant and he sustained 15 injuries in all. Out of them, it was found that the applicant sustained a fracture of nasal bone. After due investigation, the police had filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 147, 323/149, 325/149 and 506-B of IPC. The learned J.M.F.C.has also framed the charges accordingly. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for...
Mahesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1626/2013 8/10/2013 Shri Jayant Neekhra, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. They are heard on I.A.No.22863/13, which is the fiRs.application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.1 Mahesh, appellant no.2 Ramji @ Makrand Singh and appellant no.5 Bhaisaheb. Appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149, 304 Part-1/149 and 304 Part-1/149 of IPC and have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment. By placing the reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in Puran Singh and others versus The State of Punjab, AIR1975SC1674it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that since the appellants were possessing the land in question upon which the incident was occurred therefore, they were having right of private defence. Learned counsel submits that a cross case has also ...
Pradeep Singhi Vs. Devidas Brahme
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
1 W.P. No.17161 of 2013 8.10.2013 Shri N.K.Jain, counsel for the petitioners. He is heard on the question of admission. Petitioners/ applicants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 16.8.13 passed by the District Judge, Balaghat in MCC No.14/13 whereby their application filed under section 24 of the CPC to transfer the COS No.3-A/13 from the court of Civil Judge Class-I Waraseoni to some competent court of Balaghat, has been dismissed.2. In the course of the arguments on asking the petitioners counsel that while passing the impugned order, the District Court has finally disposed of the MCC and, in such premises, such order is revisable under section 115 of the C PC then how this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could be entertained. It was also asked that in view of section 24 of the CPC the petitioners have a remedy to file the application again under section 24 of the CPC before this court and...
Fulendra Bajaj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
Writ Petition No.17712/2013 08.10.2013 Shri Rajnish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners - elected Directors and the Chairman of the respondent No.4 of District Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- 1. Direct the respondents to conduct/take effective measures for the elections of the Board of Directors of the respondent No.4, Bank within the stipulated time before the extended period of the present Board of Directors is expired, which is expiring in the fiRs.week of October 2013 in the light of the order dated 10.7.2013 passed by Indore Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.7162/2013 (O) in the interest of justice. 2. Any other relief (s) which petitioners are found entitled may also kindly be granted to the petitioners along...
Sheshnarayan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON. SHRI JUSTICE G.S. SOLANKI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.528/2007 Seshnarayan and 2 others Vs. State of M.P. Shri Surendra Singh, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the appellants Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. for respondent/State. ____________________________________________________________ Date of hearing :01. 10.2013 Date of posting :08. 10.2013 JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.02.2007 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in S.T.No.89/2005 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years and R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations. The sentences shall run concurrently.2. It is undisputed that appellant No.1 is husband of deceased Babli and appellants No.2 and 3 respectively are father-in-law and mot...
Tarunendra Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
1 W.P.No.17140/2013. 8.10.2013. Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned G.A.for the respondent No.1, 2 and 4. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 (the same appears to filed under Article227) of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2013 passed by respondent No.2/ Collector in Revenue Appeal No./10-A-67/12-13 affirming the order dated 8.7.2004 passed by the S.D.O. in Revenue Case No.14-A-67/03-04 and /15-A67/03-04, whereby taking into consideration the provisions of Section 247 (4) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (In short the Code)some order was passed, has been affirmed. Initially after taking me through the papers of the placed on record along with the impugned order the petitioneRs.counsel argued at length to quash the order of the Collector along with the proceedings drawn up by the SDO saying that in the available factual matrix the SDO did not ha...
Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2201/2008 Appellants:1. Vinod Kumar Jain S/o Kanchhedi Lal Jain, aged 38 years.2. Pohap Singh Lodhi, S/o Padam Singh Lodhi, aged 20 years. Both residents of Village Sankal, Police Station Themi, District- Narsinghpur. Vs. Respondent: State of M.P. Through Police Station Anusuchit Janjati Kalyan, Narsinghpur, District Narsinghpur. Criminal Appeal No.984/2010 Appellant: Devi Singh Lodhi S/o Annilal Aged about 23 years, R/o Village Sankal, P.S.Themi, Tahsil Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur Vs. Respondent State of M.P. through P.S.AJK, Narsinghpur Present: Hon. Shri B.D.Rathi ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellants in Cr.A. No.2201/2008. Shri S.Mukherjee, Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A. No.984/2010. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent-State. --------------------------------------------------------------...
Mahendra Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
W.P.No.17725/2013 08/10/2013 Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.4, on caveat. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel accepts the notice of this writ petition on behalf of respondent No.4. Since the copy of the petition is already made available to learned counsel for respondent No.4, let a return be filed within four weeks. On payment of process fee within 7 days by registered A.D., let notices of this writ petition be issued to respondents No.1,2 and 3. Notices be made returnable in four weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.4 are heard on the question of grant of interim relief. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the deputation posting of petitioner in such a place or the organization where it is not accepted and the posting of re...
Ram Sewak Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
W.P.No.16993/2013 08.10.2013 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State, on advance copy. The petitioner, by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought a direction against the respondents to sanction and release the pension and to command the respondents to make arrears of pension after counting the period of service as daily wager from contingency fund rendered by the petitioner prior to the regularisation. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on daily wages as Labour (Mat) with effect from 30.7.1964. On completion of 25 years of service he was regularised in the year 1997 and on attaining the age of superannuation, he stood retired. It is further contention of the petitioner, that under the Madhya Pradesh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, the period of service rendered by an employee from work charge...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »