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.
Smt. Radhi Bai Raghuvanshi Vs. Jamna Prasad Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
FIRs.APPEAL No.89/20106. 02.2013 Shri Rajneesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notices of this appeal and I.A.No.1318/2013 to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. Send for the record of the Court below. In the meanwhile, if the appellants deposit 50% of the amount said to be paid by the appellants in the C.C.D.within a period of three months from today, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed. However, the amount so deposited by the appellants shall not be disbursed to the respondents until further orders of this Court. List immediately after six weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Shiv Dayal Sharma Vs. Dashrath Prasad Rathor
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 W.P.No.1892/2013 6.2.2013 Shri AdaRs.Muni Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Shukla, for the petitioner. Challenging an order dated 19.1.2013 passed by the District Judge, Anuppur in Civil Case No.17-A/2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for summoning of original records of a criminal proceeding from the Court of Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class and permitting them to be used for exhibiting certain documents, which prayer is rejected by the District Judge in an application filed under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC, petitioner has filed this writ petition. A perusal of the order Annexure P/4 dated 19.1.2013 passed by learned District Judge goes to show that the petitioner wanted to summon certain documents with regard to original proceedings held in the Court of Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class in Criminal Case No.1328/2005 and before the Sub Divisional Officer in Criminal Case No.8/2004. Petitioner wanted to refer to certain statements of witnesses recorded under S...
Ramesh Vs. Ishwardas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Petition No :3965. / 2010 Ramesh versus Ishwar Das & State of MP 06.02.2013. Shri A.D.Mishra for the petitioner. Shri Alok Pathak for respondent No.1. Petitioner is defendant in the suit in question, which has been filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1 for declaration and injunction with regard to land measuring 1.214 Hectare, situated in KhaSr.No.25/2, PH No.62, Mouza Kudari, Tehsil Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. When the case was listed for evidence of the plaintiff and when more than three witnesses of the plaintiff were present and the petitioner was not cross- examining the witnesses and was seeking adjournment, the impugned action was taken. It is the case of the petitioner that as he wanted certain amendment in the written statement and when the said amendment was dis-allowed, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 227, being W.P.No.135/2010 and due to pendency of the writ petition, he was seeking adjournment, but when the petition was dismissed on ...
Smt. Dvarka Baghele Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 W.P.No.20953/2012 Smt.Dvarka Baghele & others State of M.P.& others 6.2.2013 Shri Shakti Kumar Singh, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA for State. Shri K.K.Singh, Counsel for respondent No.2. I.A.No.1042/2013 for dismissal of petition because of misjoinder of parties. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in view of objection raised by the respondent No.2, petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on behalf of petitioneRs.as there is misjoinder of cause of action in the matter. Prayer is not opposed, hence it is allowed. Petitioners are permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty as prayed. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge Judge C....
Shri Niwas Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 W.P.No.184/2013 06.02.2013 Shri M.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 19.04.2012, is being assailed vide this petition whereby representation preferred by the petitioner seeking extension of two years of service on the anvil of a decision taken by the Government enhancing the age of retirement of Daily Wage Class-IV from 60 to 62 yeaRs.has been turned down. Facts briefly are that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages in the Forest Department on 6.2.1988. Thereafter he continued to discharge his duties, on daily wages and on attaining the age of 60 years was retired from service in October, 2012 (Date of birth of petitioner being 1.10.1952).Though after petitioner's retirement respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh through General Administration Department issued a notification No.5-1/2012/1/3 dated 9.11.2012, whereby the age of retirement of Class III and Class IV employees was increased from 60-62 yeaRs.Taking cue from the above Circular dated 9.11.2012 ...
Ramsharan Upadhayay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Mcrc No.538 o06. 02.13 Shri Paresh Parek, counsel for the applicant. Shri Alok Tapikar, PL for the respondent/State. Smt Ramwati Upadhyay, the wife of the applicant Ramsharan Upadhyay along with the prosecutrix Arti Upadhyay are present in person. They are identified by the applicant's counsel. Heard. This petition is preferred under section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant as he is in custody since 27.10.2012 in connection with Crime No.25/2012 registered at P.S.Bakswaha district Chhatarpur in respect of the offence punishable under Section 363,366,368,376 read with 34 of the IPC. The applicant's counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the impugned order so also by referring the copy of the papers of the charge sheet available on the record said that the prosecutrix Arti went with the son of the applicant namely, Gutai alias Nanhe alias Ghansyam voluntarily and resided with him for sufficient time in Haryana and during this period, ...
Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Rajesh Kumar Jain versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.20323 06. 02.2013 : Shri Jitendra Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. Challenging order dated 21.11.2012 passed by respondent No.2, the Commissioner and the order of confiscation Annexure P-5 passed by the Collector, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is owner of a Autorikshaw bearing registration not MP 3.T-0155. It is the case of petitioner that the vehicle is in the custody of driver and it is used for transportation of school children from their house to school. It is stated that on 1.10.2011 the driver of the autorikshaw unauthorizely took the vehicle and it was found carrying 175 ltrs Kerosene Oil. The vehicle was seized by Police Station Shahpura on 2.10.2011 and a case bearing No.232/11 under Section 285/34 IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered. On the ground that the vehicle is normally parked in t...
Mahendra Singh Parmar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Appeal No.1179/2012 6.2.2013 Shri S.K.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. Heard on admission. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 4.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has dismissed the appellants Writ Petition No.13826/2012. The appellant was a daily wages employee. He was appointed on 1.1.1993 as a Labourer and removed in the month of March, 1995. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No.13826/2012 and prayed for reinstatement on the basis of policy decision dated 21.1.2004 of the State Government. The learned Single Judge, after examining the policy dated 21.1.2004, has held that it is not applicable to the appellant because it related to regularization when the employee was in service and the appellant was admittedly not in service. We find the impugned order well founded and unassailable. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed summarily...
Shri P.S. Turkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10391/2012 6.2.2013 Shri Dhanraj Singh Choudhary, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Lakhera, Panel Lawyer for the State. None appeared for the respondent No.1. even after service of notice. Since the petition has been filed in a case in which State is also party, therefore considering the short question involved in the matter, heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.for quashing the order dated 23.7.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No.193/2012 by learned Sessions Judge, Jabalpur confirming the order dated 13.6.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.13525/2011 by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Jabalpur by which an application filed by one of the prosecution witness under Section 301 of the Cr.P.C.for assisting the prosecutor through counsel, has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a case has been registered on the complaint made by Court of Sub Divisional Officer and respondent No.2 is an eye witness in t...
Sujeet Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Criminal Revision No.183 o06. 02.2013 Shri Manas Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent -State. Head on the question of admission. On behalf of the applicant accused this revision is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar in S.T.No.105/2012, whereby his subsequent application filed to examine some additional witnesses in defence subsequent to passing the order by this court for examination of some other defence witnesses has been dismissed. After going through the impugned order, specially the later part of the order, I have not found any perversity, infirmity or illegality or anything against propriety of law in the order impugned. In this regard on making query from the applicant's counsel regarding entertainability of this revision, on which he seeks permission to withdraw this revision as not pressed with liberty to raise all the objections and grounds stated in...
- ‹ Prev
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- Next ›
- Last »