Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
M.P. Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Peda Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
FIRs.APPEAL No.383/20106. 02.2013 Shri Brajendra Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashim Dixit, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 to 7. I.A.No.12091/2012 has been filed for extension of time to comply with the order dated 10.07.2012. It is contended by learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 7 that the order of this Court was required to be complied with within 45 days but the same has not yet been complied with. Even the time as sought under the aforesaid I.A.has expired. However, keeping in view the facts as have been mentioned in the I.A., 15 days more time from today is allowed to the appellant to comply with the direction issued by this Court on 10.07.2012, failing which the interim relief will stand vacated automatically. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Sukhlal Vs. Khuman Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
FIRs.APPEAL No.67/20106. 02.2013 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. Issue notices of this appeal and I.A.No.905/2013 to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.and ordinary mode. Notices be made returnable in six weeks. Send for the record of the Court below. In the meanwhile, if the appellant deposits 50% of the amount said to be recovered from the appellant in the C.C.D.within a period of one month from today, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed. However, the amount so deposited by the appellant shall not be disbursed to the respondent No.1 until further orders of this Court. List immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Phoolan Devi Basor Vs. Shri Prem Singh Wist
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 Conc No.148/2013 Phoolan Devi Basor Prem Singh Wist & others 6.2.2013 Petitioner along with Shri S.P.Mishra, Counsel, present. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, Counsel for respondents. A compliance report has been filed by the respondents stating that a crime under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC was registered as Crime No.0/2012 by P.S.AJAK, Jabalpur. Thereafter, caste of the petitioner was determined and it was found that she belongs to Lodhi caste. She was not a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, so the matter alongwith case diary was sent to P.S.Uchchhehara, District Satna for further investigation. It is submitted that order passed by this Court has been duly complied with. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits:- (i) That the caste of the petitioner has been wrongly determined as Lodhi while she is Basor and in fact is a lady belonging to a scheduled caste. (ii) That a case has not been registered against all the culprits. By an order dated 18.6.2012, we disposed of Writ Petiti...
Abdul Kadir Vs. Deepchand Shivhare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Abdul Kadir versus Deepchand Shivhare & Others Writ Petition No.620 6. 2.2013: Shri Raviranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.4 Challenging an interlocutory order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the IV th Civil Judge Class-II Mandla in Civil Suit No.21a/2012, petitioner has field this writ petition. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed suit in question for declaration and injunction merely on the ground that respondent/defendants has encroached the land and area belong to petitioner and therefore suit has been filed for removing them from encroached area. In the suit in question it was the case of petitioner that sale deed has been executed and sale deed in original was taken by a patwari, thereafter it was misplaced by patwari and as the said patwari died, therefore, the sale deed is not traceable, petitioner wanted summoning of the original record with reg...
Sunil Paltanwale Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Petition No.1885/2013 06.02.2013 Mr.D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for a period from 31.8.2010 to 5.1.2012 along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Competent Authority with regard to his grievance and the Competent Authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that in case, such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representatio...
Buddhsen Chourasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Criminal Revision No.2049 o06. 02.2013 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent -State. Head on the question of admission. In the couRs.of arguments on admission, in response of some query of the court, instead to argue further, applicants' counsel seeks permission to withdraw this revision as not pressed with liberty to raise all the objections and grounds stated in the revision at the appropriate stage of the trial in defence of the applicants and subject to judgment of the trial court on arising the occasion in duly constituted appeal. Considering such prayer the revision is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed. C c as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks...
Kaluram Vs. Ayodhya Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Kaluram & Another versus Ayodhya Prasad & OtheRs.Writ Petition No.1666 06. 02.2013 : Shri Surendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioners are defendant in the suit in question for partition and as by the impugned order dated 29.11.2012 the right of the petitioners to file the written statement was closed and the application for taking the written statement on record is also dismissed on 10.1.2013, petitioners are before this Court. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that due to certain mistake on their part and due to non-availability of certain documents the written statement could not be filed in time and as the written statement has already filed it is rejected only on the ground that it is filed after a period of 90 days. Interalia contending that merely on the ground of delay the right to file the written statement should not be closed. The written statement already filed by petitioner is d...
Ramnarayan Tiwari and ors. Vs. Smt Uttarabai and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 S.A No.455/1995 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.455/1995 APPELLANTS : RAMNARAYAN TIWARI AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENTS : UMA SHANKER PACHOLI AND ANOTHER Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellants : Shri Ravish Agrawal, Senior Counsel, Shri V. S. Shroti, Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Shroti and Shri Amit Nagpal, Advocates. For respondent no.1 : Shri Arun Kumar Choubey and Shri Jagtendra Prasad, Advocates. For respondent no.2. : Shri Sudesh Verma, Govt. Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (05/02/2013) The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1995 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Appeal No.14-A/90 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1990 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Seoni Malwa, in Civil Suit No.34-A/1987.2. Before adverting to the issue involved in the appeal ...
Harmeet Singh Vs. Smt.Gurusharan Kaur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11291/2012 6.2.2013 Shri A.K.Jain, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sajidulla Khan, counsel for the respondent. Heard on admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.challenging the proceedings of unregistered case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Jabalpur on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that complainant has filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the cross-examination complainant has admitted that she is living at Jabalpur since 8.5.2007 when her husband left her at Jabalpur and a complaint regarding dowry harassment is before 8.5.2007 when she was residing at Katni with her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the certified copy of the cross-examination part of the statement of complainant. Learned counsel for the responden...
Sarita Turre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1642/2013 6.2.2013 Shri Aseem Dixit, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Pratibha Mishra, PL for the State. Looking to the nature of order passed by the trial Court, heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 22.1.2013 passed in S.T.No.642/2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge Rehali, District Sagar whereby charges have been framed against the accused persons, who were impleaded as accused in challan and issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner being owner of the vehicle involved in the crime has also been directed to be impleaded as accused without giving any opportunity of hearing and without any application for impleading her as accused on behalf of prosecution and without considering the fact that petitioner is a witness for prosecution and for her examination according to trial programme case is fixed for hearing on 6.4.2013. Therefor...
- ‹ Prev
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- Next ›
- Last »