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.
Noor Ahmed Quareshi Vs. Mohd. Ishaqueweldor
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Cr.R.No.1157 o04. 02.13 Shri Lalji Kushwaha, counsel for the applicant. This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.986/10 an application for modification or order dated 20.7.09 passed by the Co.ordinate bench of this court directing the applicant to file appropriate application for necessary amendment and correction in the memo of petition for conversion of this criminal revision into petition for grant of leave to appeal. It is undisputed fact on record that subsequent to passing such order in compliance of the same, neither the appropriate application for amendment/ correction of the revision was filed not any step in this regard was taken. On the contrary, the aforesaid IA for recalling such earlier order has been filed which is not entertainable because of the following reasons :- (a) Initially the applicant herein filed the private complaint against the respondent before the trial court i.e JMFC Harda for his prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act...
Ramesh Lal Panjwani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Revenu Department
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Writ Petition No :18775. / 2012 Ramesh Lal Panjwani versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 04.02.2013. Shri Sushil Mishra for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Petitioner had migrated from Pakistan and as his claim for grant of land is not considered, he has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that the application filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration before respondent No.2 Commissioner, Jabalpur. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 the Commissioner, is directed to decide the application of the petitioner for allocation of land in accordance to the policies and circulars of the State Government and decide it by a speaking order within a period of three months. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Abdul Jakee Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Abdul Jakee versus The State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18834 4. 2.2013: Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. On the orders passed by this Court the Corpus has been produced, she makes a statement that she does not want to go with the petitioner, but she wants to go with her parents. In the light of the statement made by corpus, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. If petitioner has any grievance with regard to the fact that corpus is married to the petitioner and she is not discharging her marital duties, petitioner may initiate proceedings in accordance to law before an appropriate forum, but not in these proceedings. During the couRs.of making her statement corpus made a complaint against petitioner to the effect that certain documents with regard to her education and her mother's jewelery are with petitioner and he is not returning it, if that be so, she should either make a comp...
Kamlendra Singh Vs. Ravendra Singh Baghel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
M.C.C.No.792/20004. 02.2013 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri B.K.Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent. Reply to the application has already been filed. Though it is contended in the reply that no legal right is available to claim any relief to the applicant in the fiRs.appeal, which is pending consideration, but it is not disputed that an area of 750 Sq.Ft. of land KhaSr.No.290/1 of the concerned village has been sold by the respondent during the pendency of FiRs.Appeal No.141/2000 in which an interim injunction was already granted by this Court restraining alienation of the property in suit by any of the parties in the suit, on 08.02.2002. However, it is stated that in case the applicant succeeds in the appeal, the respondent would grant the land from the land which will be legally available to the respondent for satisfaction of any decree. Though such a stand taken by the respondent is not acceptable in the eye of law in view of the fact that spec...
Digamber Gaikwad Vs. Mohd. Akeel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
MA No.3722/06 1 MA No.3722/2006 04/02/2013 Appellant by Mr. Kapil Patwardhan, Advocate. Mr. Jayant Neekhra, Advocate who is present in Court and is one of the panel lawyer for Insurance Company is requested to make appearance on behalf of Insurance Companyrespondent No.2. Counsel for the appellant is directed to supply copy of memo of appeal and impugned award to the counsel for Insurance Company during course of the day. Heard on IA 10514/2006, which is application for condonation of delay. As per the Office the delay is of 5 years and 211 days. From perusal of the record it appears that the award was passed on 12.5.2006 and the appeal was filed on 16.10.2006. Thus, the delay was of 66 days. There is delay in filing certified copy of the award but limitation has to be computed from the date when the appeal is filed and not from the date when the certified copy of the award is filed. Sufficient ground is made out in the application for condoning the delay. Application is allowed. Delay...
R.K. Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
WP 13435.10(s) Writ Petition No.13435 of 2010(s) (R.K. Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and three others) 04-02-2013 Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. K. Rao, learned senior counsel with Shri Shailendra Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. Orders dated 22-02-2010 and 13-08-2010 are being assailed vide this writ petition. By order dated 22-02-2010, petitioner's right of consideration for promotion to the cadre of Administrative Officer has been forfeited by eliminating his name from ranking list. Whereas, by order dated 13-08-2010, respondent No.3, the Deputy General Manager and Promoting Authority declined to entertain the appeal preferred against the order forfeiting the right of consideration for promotion on the ground that no appeal for waiver has been received. While employed as Senior Assistant, with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., at CBO IV, Bhopal, petitioner was considered for promotion to the cadre of Administrative Offic...
Omprakash Vishvakarma Th. Shobha Vs. Sabir Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 MA No.405/2006 04/02/2013 Appellant by Mr. Manikant Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate who is present in Court and is one of the panel lawyer for Insurance Company is requested to make appearance on behalf of Insurance Company respondent No.3. Counsel for the appellant is directed to supply copy of memo of appeal and impugned award to the counsel for Insurance Company during course of the day. With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally. ORDER This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 21.11.2005 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Claim Case No.114/2005. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.42,000/- with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to claimant i.e. appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the en...
Hameed Shah Vs. Haroon Nisha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5657/2011 4.2.2013 Shri Abdul Waheed Choudhary, Adv.for the petitioner. Shri Devendra Gangrade, Advocate for the respondent. The petitioner has filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.challenging the order dated 15.4.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad in Cr. Revision No.87/2010 reversing the order dated 20.4.2010 passed by JMFC, Sohagpur in M.Cr.C.No.24/2008 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.1000/- per month by holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the divorce to his wife according to the Muslim law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent/wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.in which the petitioner took the defence that during the pendency of the application, the petitioner had given the divorce by written divorce dated 3.8.2009 in the presence of witnesses Wasil Shah ...
Smt. Kushal Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 W.P.No.1766/2013 4.2.2013 Shri Deepak Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner claims to have been married to respondent No.5 and as a matrimonial dispute has arisen between the petitioner and respondent No.5 it is seen that dispute is pending before the competent Court of jurisdiction at Katni. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 is harassing the petitioner, is ill-treating her and therefore, she was c ompelled to raise the dispute before the Court. That apart, on the ground that petitioner is missing, her whereabouts are not known, respondent No.5 has filed a complaint. Petitioner apprehends that the police authorities may arrest her or take action against her on the complaint made by respondent No.5, petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that respondent No.5 be restrained from making all these complaints against her and police authorities be directed not to take cognizance on such complaints. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is dire...
Sanjay Nayak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Writ Petition No.685/2013 4.2.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel with Shri Vineet Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State. It is not disputed that the elections of Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, Simrakhas, District Tikamgarh were already declared on 7.1.2013 vide Annexure P12. By the impugned order, the respondents propose to hold the same elections by a new programme dated 7.1.2013, Annexures P1 and P2. Prima facie there is no power with the respondents to hold an election after it has already been held, unless such an election is set aside by the competent Court under section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. Hence, there shall be ad- interim stay to the operation of the impugned order to the extent that it purports to re-holding of the election, which has already been held. Certified copy as per rules. (S.A.BOBDE) (AJIT SINGH) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE TG/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- Next ›
- Last »