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.
Vishnukant Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Writ Petition No :16449. / 2012 Vishnukant Mishra versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 04.02.2013. Shri H.C Kohli for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PL, for the State. Petitioner is owner of Vehicle Bearing not MP-18-P- 6155. Grievance of the petitioner is that on the ground of non- payment of tax under the MP Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam of 1991).the vehicle in question has been seized by respondent No.3. It is common ground that the authority of an officer like respondent No.3 to seize a vehicle under the statutory provisions is already considered and in Writ Petition No.5057/2007 (M/s Hardeo Motor Transport Company versus State of MP and otheRs.decided on 3.8.2007, it has been held that a police officer like respondent No.3 does not have the authority to seize the vehicle under the mandatory provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1991. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The vehicle seized by respondent No.3 is ...
Rajesh Tamrakar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Rajesh Tamrakar & Another versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.1754 4. 2.2013: Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Interalia contending that regular or temporary permit on the route Damoh to Hata as per the frequency of the route which was maintained when the M.P.Road Transport Corporation was operating the vehicle, and not to grant any permit otherwise unhealthy competition would be created, this writ petition has been filed. It is pointed out that a representation in this regard is pending before respondent No.2 and has not been decided. Keeping in view the grievance of petitioner and considering the fact that representation is still pending before respondent No.2, for the present, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of petitioner and decide it in accordance to law at an earlier date. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy a...
Manoj Vs. Smt. Rajkumar, Th:lrs, Balvirchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
CIVIL REVISION No.26/20104. 02.2013 Shri Sushil Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Issue notices of this civil revision and I.A.No.658/2013 to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended that after dismissal of the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs, during pendency of the fiRs.appeal against the judgment and decree, permission was sought to file a separate suit afresh indicating the bonafide need of someone else. Even before obtaining such a permission, the suit was already filed by the respondent No.3. That being so, such a permission granted by the lower Appellate Court was not just and proper. In view of the aforesaid, the subsequent suit would not be maintainable in the eye of law. The applicant has not raised any objection with respect to maintainability of the suit subsequently filed. This being so, the applicant may raise such...
Mohammad Shafi Khan Vs. Smt. Zahida Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1545/2013 4.2.2013 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Pratibha Mishra, PL for the State. Let notice for admission as well as IA No.2855/2013, an application for staying the further proceeding against the petitioners in furtherance of FIR registered on Crime No.335/2012 of Police Station Nawgaon District Chhatarpur (MP).be issued to the respondent No.1 on payment of process fee within seven days by both modes (RAD mode as well as by ordinary).Notices be made returnable within four weeks. List this case for admission immediately after service of notice on the respondent No.1. In the meanwhile, further proceeding of above mentioned crime on the basis of criminal case No.747/2012 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Nawgaon, Chhatarpur, shall remain stayed till next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules. (A.K.Sharma) JUDGE ravi...
Rampal Malaiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 W.P.No.1749/2013 04.02.2013 Shri S.P.Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 10.01.2013, is being assailed vide this petition by petitioner Area Organizer Tribal Welfare Department, incharge Assistant Director, Backward Class/Minority Welfare Department. By impugned order lecturers in School Education Department sent on deputation to Backward Class and Minority Welfare Department, are posted as Assistant Director at various places. It is urged that by posting the Lecturers on deputation on the non-teaching posts, the respondents have violated the provisions of Right of Children to free and compulsory Education Act, 2009. Placing reliance on Section 27 of 2009 Act it is submitted that no teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposed other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislature or Parliament, as the case may be. It is further submitted that the School E...
Praveenchand Marothi Vs. Prithviraj Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Praveenchand Marothi versus Prithviraj Singh & Another Writ Petition No.21261 4. 2.2013: Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for respondents. Petitioner is defendant and has filed the petition challenging the order dated 3.12.2012 passed by learned court below closing the right of petitioner to lead evidence on the ground that petitioner did not keep the witness present, his counsel did not examined the witness even time was granted on more than 5 occasions, the right of defendant to lead the evidence has been closed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that interest of justice requires that one last opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to keep his witness present and examine them. Accordingly, it is directed that on petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with affidavit of witness under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC before the trial court on 25.2.2013 and depositing th...
Motiram [D] Ramdas and ors Vs. Smt. Urmila Bai @ Maroobai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 S.A.No.282/2002 Motiram & ORS.versus Smt. Urmila Bai 04.02.2013 Shri Sanjay Sarwate learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Sameer Seth learned counsel for respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants on I.A No.10883/2009 filed by the respondent under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC,; I.A No.14827/2011, filed by the respondents for dismissing the appeal as abated; I.A No.3670/2012 for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent; I.A No.3671/2012 for setting aside abetment; and I.A No.3672/2012 for condonation of delay. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties an the aforesaid applications at length. From a perusal of the record it is clear that the sole respondent in the appeal died on 21.6.2009 at Khandwa pursuant to which an application, I.A No.10883/2009, under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC, was filed by the respondent on 20.9.2009 bringing on record the aforesaid fact. As no steps were taken by the appellants for a long period of more than tw...
Guddu Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Cr.A.No.233/2013 4.2.2013 Shri Manot Sharma, counsel for appellants. None for respondent, though it is stated that a copy of the memo of appeal along with I.A.No.2385/2013 has been served on the counsel for respondent. Heard on admission. This appeal is admitted for final hearing. Record of the trial Court be summoned. I.A.No.2385/2013 under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.It is stated by the appellants that the appellants were on bail during the trial. They have not misused the liberty and after conviction by the trial Court appellants have been released on bail and are seeking suspension of sentence from this Court. It is submitted that the time period of bail granted by the trial Court is upto 8.2.2013. Considering the aforesaid and in the interest of justice, prayer made in I.A.No.2385/2013 is allowed. The sentences of appellants only are suspended on following terms :- 1. Appellants to furnish solvent surety of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the tri...
Mohammad Khan Vs. Ramgopal [Died] Lr's Siya Dulari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR CIVIL REVISION No.125/2012 Mohammad Khan Vs. Ramgopal & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri R.L. Ariha, learned Counsel for the respondents. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (04.02.2013) The grievance of the applicant in the present revision is against the order dated 29.02.2012 passed in Misc. Civil Case No.79/2009, by the II Civil Judge, Class-I, Rewa, rejecting the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the applicant.2. Undisputed facts are that a suit was filed by the original decree holder Ramgopal, son of Ramnath Soni (since deceased) against the applicant being Civil Suit No.249/1989 for possession of immovable property. Specific claim for grant of decree was made by the origina...
Ramlakhan Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Writ Petition No.241/2013 4.2.2013 Shri Ravindra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Prashant Singh, Additional Advocate General, takes notice on behalf of the State/respondents. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have filed this petition in public interest questioning the validity of elections of the Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, District Rewa including the petitioners society which was to be held on 3.1.2012, 8.1.2012 and 12.1.2012 as per election programme of 2012-2013. Mr.Singh, states that the impugned elections are already over and the petitioner has a remedy by way of election petition under section 64(2)(v) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The learned counsel for petitioners vehemently submitted that petition should be entertained. He, however, admitted that the elections are over. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage assailing an election which has alread...
- ‹ Prev
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- Next ›
- Last »