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.
Ashok Singh Yadav Vs. Smt. Sadhna Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
M.A.No.3893/20006. 02.2013 Shri Lokesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4. This appeal has been listed in view of the P.U.D.sent by the VIII Additional District Judge, Bhopal, on 20.11.2012, who was required to comply with the order dated 26.04.2012 passed in M.A.No.3893/2009. It is pointed out that the original plaintiff Mohan Singh was examined ex parte and ex parte judgment and decree was passed, which has been challenged and accordingly set aside by this Court by passing order in M.A.No.3893/2009 on 26.04.2012. While allowing the appeal, this Court has directed that the appellant herein would be entitled to adduce his evidence only on one occasion and since all the parties are being represented before this Court, the parties will appear before the Court below on 30th November, 2012. It is informed that since original plaintiff Mohan Singh was not cross-examined, and in terms of the directions of this Court in case...
M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ramkali Prajapati
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
FIRs.APPEAL No.583/20106. 02.2013 Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant. Heard on I.A.No.6702/2012, an application for grant of interim stay. This Court has already issued notice of this I.A.on 27.06.2012. According to the office report, the notice is served on the son of the respondent. However, no body is present to oppose the application filed by the appellant. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that on deposit of Rs.60,000/- by the appellant within a month from today in the C.C.D.of the Executing Court, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain in abeyance till further orders of this Court. The amount so deposited will not be disbursed to the respondent without the leave of this Court. Certified copy today. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Chandramani Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Petition No :5550. / 2010 Chandramani Prasad and another versus State of MP and others 06.02.2013. Shri U.K.Tripathi for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, Government Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. Shri D.S.Chouhan for the remaining respondents. Challenging the order-dated 30.3.3010 Annexure P/1, passed by the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class II, Sidhi in Civil Suit No.16-A/2009, rejecting an application for amendment filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure P/3, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner has filed this writ petition. An application for framing of additional issues in this regard has also been rejected. Petitioner has filed the suit in question and in paragraph 22 of the writ petition, petitioner has mentioned various properties which form part of the suit property. Alongwith the plaint, petitioner has annexed a statement of the property as Annexure A, and it is the case of the petitioner that in paragraph 20, after mentioning K...
Malkhan Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Malkhan Choudhary & Others versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.8905 06. 02.2013 : Shri Deepak Okhade, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner claims to be resident of the area in question for a long period of time and it is stated that they have right to possession as they are staying for more than 20-25 yeaRs.petitioners have filed this writ petition. From perusal of record it is clear that petitioner have not filed any documents or material to show their right in the property in question, if land is held by petitioner unauthorizedly, the State is entitled to evict the petitioner from the area in question. However, while doing so opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the petitioner and action taken. With the aforesaid, for the present, no further case is made out for interference, the petition is disposed of. ( Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*...
Mahendra Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
R.P.No.948/20106. 02.2013 Shri Praveen Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondent No.5 though served with the notice of this review petition. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 01.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.16178/2012 filed by the respondent No.5. It is pointed out that on earlier occasions also the respondent No.5 has tried to challenge the caste certificate issued in respect of the applicant but such attempts made by the respondent No.5 were frustrated only on account of filing of a Writ Appeal No.416/2008 by the applicant. The respondent No.5 was fully aware of the fact that false allegations were made by him against the applicant and, therefore, there was no occasion for filing of the writ petition aforesaid once again for the similar relief. This Court after examining the record has issued the notice of this review petition to the respondents. Notices issued to ...
A.K. Singla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1643/2013 6.2.2013 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sameer Chile, GA for the State. Let notice for admission as well as for IANo.2942/2013, an application for staying the further proceedings of investigation on the basis of FIR registered at Police Station Churhata District Rewa (MP).be issued to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within seven days by both modes (RAD as well as Ordinary Mode).Notices be made returnable within four weeks. In the meanwhile, since petitioners have been impleaded as accused in a case where removal of encroachment was done by order of Competent Revenue Court, therefore, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioneRs.till next date of hearing. List this matter immediately after service of notice on the respondent No.2. C.C.as per rules. (A.K.Sharma) JUDGE ravi...
Ramesh Kumar Saraf [Dead] Through Lrs- Smt. Sarita Saraf Vs. Prem Nara ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Second Appeal No.1067 / 2012 Ramesh Kumar through his LRs ..Vs.Prem Narayan Saraf and another 06-02-2013 Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri B.M.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2012 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.24-A/ 2011 affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.307-A/2010 by the Second Civil Judge Class I, Jabalpur decreeing the suit for eviction filed by the respondents under Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the several decisions of this Court and Supreme Court has submitted that the plaintiffs/respondents were required to plead and prove that they were owner of the premises before they could have been granted a decree under Section 12(1)(f) of th...
Deepak Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Appeal No.907/2012 6.2.2013 Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior counsel, with Shri A.J.Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel, with Shri T.K.Khadka, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Heard on admission. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 30.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has dismissed the appellants Writ Petition No.11337/2012. The appellant and respondent no.3 are holding the post of Patwari vide order dated 15.7.2012. The appellant was transferred from Patwari Halka Waidhan-51 R.I.Circle Waidhan, District Singrauli to Patwari Halka Tiyra in the same district and in his place respondent no.3 has been posted on transfer. The appellant challenged the order dated 15.7.2012 on the ground that he has been dislodged mainly to adjust respondent no.3, who is son-in-law of local M.L.A.Kedar Nath Shukla. The learned Single...
Dasrath Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Criminal Revision No.1230 o06. 02.2013 Shri R.S.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Alok Tapikar, learned PL for respondent -State. Head on the question of admission. Initially by referring a copy of the charge sheet and papers placed on record alongwith the impugned order, the case was argued at length by the applicant's counsel for quashment of the impugned charges framed against the applicant by allowing the revision, but in view of available evidence collected by the Investigating Agency and submitted alongwith the Police Report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., on asking such counsel that in such situation before holding the trial how the applicant may be discharged from the charges framed, on which instead to argue further, he seeks permission to withdraw this revision as not pressed with liberty to raise all the grounds and objections stated in this revision memo at the appropriate stage of trial in defence and subject to judgment of the trial court on arising the o...
Achhelal Rajak Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 W.P.No.21748/2012 06.02.2013 Shri Manhar Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents on advance notice. The petitioner by way of present petition seeks following relief- (i).To issue order/orders directing the respondent tho rectify the mistake by amending the date of birth of petitioner as 20.09.1958 in the service record. (ii).To issue order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may think fit. In respect of the relief sought for by the petitioner vide this petition, it is stated that a representation has already been preferred on 28.09.2012 which is pending consideration. Instead of pressing this petition, it is urged on behalf of petitioner that, he may be given liberty to pursue his representation which is pending consideration before Competent Authority. In view whereof, petitioner is granted liberty to pursue the representation preferred by him before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority is expected to dwell upon t...
- ‹ Prev
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- Next ›
- Last »