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.
State Bank of India Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
6.2.2013 Shri Nitin Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.K.Lakhera, PL for the State. None for respondent No.2 though served. The petitioner Bank has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by order dated 24.4.2012 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.2/2012 whereby the order dated 3.12.2011 passed by JMFC, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.16574/2010 of furnishing the undertaking and security of Rs.6 Lacs has been modified to Rs.4 Lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Bank has financed the vehicle and he is ready to furnish the undertaking, however, Bank is not able to furnish the security, therefore, the vehicle be released on furnishing the undertaking only. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a Nationalized Bank and the Bank Authorities are duty bound to follow the conditions of Supurdgi. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,...
Usha Lyengar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 Cr.R. No.2099/12 & 2008/12 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2099/2012 Usha Iyengar. -Vs- State of MP & another. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2008/2012 Krishna Kumar Naikar. -Vs- State of MP. In Cr.R.No.2099/2012 Applicant in person. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.2. In Cr.R.No.2008/2012 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 6th day of February, 2013) This order passed by this Court shall govern disposal of the above mentioned criminal revisions, as both the revisions have arisen out of common impugned order.2. The applicant-prosecutrix has preferred the criminal revision No.2099/12 against the order dated 29.8.2012 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judg...
Vijay Kumar Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Criminal Revision No.944 o06. 02.2013 Shri Prakash Gupta, 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 th...
Praveen Pandya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
WRIT PETITION No.10291/20006. 02.2013 None for the petitioner. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents-State. Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. This Court has considered the matter at length and has found that there was a way to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents by convening the D.P.C.and considering the cases of petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4. Learned Govt. Advocate, who was appearing before this Court on 11.10.2012 had undertaken to communicate such a fact to the authorities and the State was also ready to undertake such exercise. On 30th November, 2012, time was obtained by learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State to intimate this Court about the decision of the State authorities. The matter was listed on 3rd January, 2013 and on that day instead of giving any information, it was pointed out as if the matter was part heard. The Court has directed listing of the matter before this Bench. As...
Zamir Bahadur Vs. TahsIn Bahadur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Petition No :1408. / 2013 Zamir Bahadur versus Tahsin Bahadur and others 06.02.2013. Shri D.K.Tripathi for the petitioner. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction with regard to certain property. In the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and wanted to bring on record a will Annexure P/3. The application has been rejected on the ground that the will is with regard to certain land and the dispute in the civil suit is with regard to a building. That apart, it is held that the evidence of the parties has already been recorded and the will at this belated stage cannot be taken on record. Discretion exercised by the learned Court and the reasons given for dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as indicated hereinabove, cannot be termed as erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a procee...
Brijwasilal Vs. Purushottam Das
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Brijwasilal & Others versus Purushottam Das & Another Writ Petition No.1343 06. 02.2013 : Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner is defendant and has filed the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the Ist Civil Judge Class- II, Deosar, District Singrauli in Civil Suit No.64-A/2011 by which an application filed by the petitioner for appointment of Commission under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC has been rejected. It is held by the court below that for the purpose of collecting evidence commission cannot be appointed. Rejection of the application for appointment of commission under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for the reasons as indicated hereinabove cannot be termed as perveRs.or erroneous to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. Accordingly, finding no ground for in...
Bhailal Burma Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
---1--- W.A.No.31/2013 6.2.2013 Shri Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. By consent heard finally. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.7826/2012 by learned Single Judge of this Court, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing that the writ petitioner be medically examined in terms of the medical procedure for the purpose of verification of his age. It is not disputed that after order of the learned Single Judge the re-examination has been held in accordance with the order. If any party is aggrieved, thereby he can challenge the said result of the re-examination. We see no reason to interfere in this writ appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. (S.A.Bobde) (Ajit Singh) Chief Justice Judge AK...
Abdul Rasheed Vs. Smt. Zeba @ Arshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
F.A.No.64/2013 06.02.2013 Shri M. Aadil Usmani, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the FiRs.Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in M.J.C.Case No.35/2011 by which the Family Court has permitted appellant to meet his daughter namely Ku. Ramisha @ Madiha @ Rehnuma on every 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 11:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.for 4 houRs.The court further directed that respondent No.1 shall not interfere at the time of meeting of appellant with respondent No.2. This order is under challenge in this appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that earlier there was an order by which appellant was permitted to carry his daughter to his home which is adjoining to the Hospital in which the respondent No.1 is working but not that order has been modified and the appellant has been permitted to meet his daughter in the house of respondent No.1. It is submitted that brother...
Jahur Khan Vs. Managing Director, M.P.Power Management Co Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 W.P.No.18399/2012 06.02.2013 Smt.G.K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. Though the matter is posted for consideration of I.A.No.16764/2012, an application for vacating the stay order dated 7.12.2012, however, since the pleadings are complete, with consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. Order dated 17.10.2011, is being assailed vide this petition by the petitioner Assistant Grade-II; whereby, he has been retired on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years w.e.f.31.07.2012. Initially, appointed by order dated 22.09.1985 as Office Assistant Grade-III (LDC) in Gramin Vidyut Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Laundi, District Chhatarpur. The society being constituted under M.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, services of the petitioner were governed by Rules framed by Registrar in exercise of the powers under Section 55 (1) of the 1960 Act. That, Registrar by order dated 1.10.2008, in exercise of ...
Mohammad Baig Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Writ Petition No :1565. / 2013 Mohammed Baig and another versus State of MP and another 06.02.2013. Shri M. Adil Usmani for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Petitioners are plaintiff and have filed this writ petition challenging an interlocutory order passed by the learned court below on 2.11.2012, rejecting an application filed by them under section 141 read with Order 40 Rule 1 and Rule 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of a receiver. The learned court has found that for the purpose of resolving the dispute between the parties, which is a private dispute, appointment of receiver is not permissible and the application has been rejected on the ground that for the nature of dispute proceeding under section 141 read with Order 40 Rule 1 and Rule 151 CPC is not maintainable. Rejection of the application by the court below for the reasons as indicated hereinabove, does not call for any interference in this proceeding under Article 227...
- ‹ Prev
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- Next ›
- Last »