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.
Chhotelal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Second Appeal No.85 / 2012 ( Chhotelal & others ..Vs.State of M.P.& others ) 04-02-2013 Heard Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21-9-2011 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh, in C.A.No.85-A/2011, affirming the judgment and decree dated 12-01-2010, passed by the FiRs.Civil Judge Class II, Tikamgarh, in C.S.No.45-A/2009. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants had filed a suit for declaration and restoration of possession in respect of Survey No.286/2, area 809 hectares and Survey No.215, area 0.752 hectares, situated in village Memon Toriya, Tahsil and District Tikamgarh. It is stated that the said land was initially given in lease (Patta) to Laxmi Devi wife of appellant No.8 and mother of appellants No.1 to 7 for undertaking plantation work but ...
R.C. Raikwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Cr.A.No.209/2013 4.2.2013 Shri Manot Sharma, counsel for appellant. None for respondent, though it is stated that a copy of the memo of appeal along with I.A.No.2104/2013 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.2104/2013 under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.It is stated by the appellant that the appellant was on bail during the trial. He has not misused the liberty and after conviction by the trial Court appellant has been released on bail and is 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.2104/2013 is allowed. The sentence of appellant only is suspended on following terms :- 1. Appellant to furnish solvent surety of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the satisfaction of the trial Court and a pers...
Heeralal Vs. Radheshyam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
MA No.4475/07 1 MA No.4475/2007 04/02/2013 Appellants by Mr. Sudhir Mishra, Advocate. Respondent No.1 by Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate Respondent No.2 by Mrs. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate With the consent of the parties matter heard finally. ORDER This is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 4.8.2007 passed by MACT, Khandwa in claim case No.4/2006. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Bheemsingh, who died in vehicle accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts / evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent ...
Keshav Singh Vs. Dharmraj Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 MCC No.110/2013 04.02.2013 Shri K.K.Kushwaha learned counsel for the applicants. This is an application for restoration of S.A No.294/2011 dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 03.01.2013. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the aforesaid appeal stood dismissed on account of the fact that the counsel for the appellants could not notice the case in the cause list and as such could not remain present when the matter was called up for hearing and due to his non-appearance the appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the application for restoration deserves to be allowed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicants. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the fact that the reasons stated in the application for restoration are bonafide, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.01.2013 passed in S.A No.294/2011 is recalle...
Rajesh Vs. Narayan (Dead) Th:lts. Manu Bai Mahobe
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Writ Petition No :17721. / 2012 Rajesh and others versus Narayan (Deceased) and others 04.02.2013. Shri Ravish Agrawal, Senior Advocate, with Shri Sanjay Sarwate for the petitioneRs.Shri Manish Tiwari for the respondents. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order-dated 3.9.2012 Annexure P/5 passed by the learned 4th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Khandwa, by which an application filed by the petitioners for impounding the partition deed and seeking payment of stamp duty has been rejected. Petitioners are plaintiff in the suit in question and the suit is for declaration and claiming share of the petitioners in the property. The suit property was the self-acquired property belonging to one Suratiya, who had died in the year 1982. After his death the suit property devolved to the legal representatives of the deceased, which included Suratiyas wife and according to the plaintiffs their mother, and subsequently they are enti...
Govind Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
WP 1779.13 Writ Petition No.1779 of 2013 (Govind Prasad Mishra v. The State of M.P.and three otheRs.04-02-2013 Shri O.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Order dated 04-01-2013 is being assailed vide this petition; whereby, claim of the petitioner for grant of seniority from initial date of appointment has been turned down. Instead, the petitioner has been assigned seniority on the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 30-09-1985. Initially appointed as Laboratory Attendant on 04-11-1969 in School Education Department in Higher Secondary School, Nipaniya, district Shahdol, the petitioner was redesignated as Assistant Teacher (Science) in furtherance to the policy decision taken by State Government on 11-10-1985 whereby, it was decided to redesignate Laboratory Attendant as Assistant Teacher (Science) and fix seniority in the cadre of Assistant Teacher. This decision was taken in the light of the fact that 932 posts of Laboratory Attendant in the grade of Rs.515-800 were...
Narbada Prasad Vs. Vijay Ram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 W.P.No.1816/2013 4.2.2013 Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the order dated 5.1.2013 Annexure P/ 8 passed by the Court of XIXth Civil Judge, Class I, Bhopal whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC for producing the original deed of partition from the respondents is rejected, this writ petition has been filed. Respondents plaintiffs have filed the suit in question for declaration and permanent injunction and in the said suit at the time of final hearing after all the evidence was recorded, petitioner filed an application for production of the document in question. The Court found that apart from the fact that partition deed is not necessary for deciding the controversy, it was found that the application has been filed belatedly at the stage when the suit is fixed for final hearing after recording of evidence and there is direction of the High Court for deciding the suit. Accordingly finding document need not to be pro...
Leela Kishan Vs. Sajid Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 MA.No.755/2006 04/02/2013 Appellant by Mr. Narendra Sharma, Advocate. Respondent No.3 by Mr. Pranay Gupta, Advocate. With the consent of the parties, the 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 26.11.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandla in Claim Case No.61/2005 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs.70,000/- was awarded out of which respondent No.3 was held liable to the extent of Rs.6,000/- on account of loss of property. According to claimant i.e. appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awar...
Ashok Kumar Dwivedi @ Pappu Dwivedi Vs. Prakash Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9508/2012 4.2.2013 Shri Ramshankar Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Arguments heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 28.6.2012 passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge Rewa in Criminal Revision No.44/2012 filed against the order dated 4.1.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.215/2010 by learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Teonthar whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.for amendment of the complaint, has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the Courts below have allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.in a criminal case. The above said provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in the criminal proceeding therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below are illegal and therefore liable to b...
Brijesh Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Writ Petition No.380/2013 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 Sidhi including the petitioners society which was to be held on 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 already been he...
- ‹ Prev
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- Next ›
- Last »