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.
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Jairamdas Ram Nath Firm and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 S.A.No.334/1998 Sanjay Kumar versus Jairamdas & ORS.01.02.2013 Shri Manot Kushwaha learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Multai, District Betul in Civil Appeal No.2-B/97 affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1997 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I Multai, in Civil Suit No.28-B/94. From a perusal of the record it is clear that the appellant had filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,920/- which was the price of the food grain allegedly sold by him to Jairamdas Ram Nath Firm. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below have dismissed the claim of the appellant without appreciating the evidence on record moreso as the fact of sale of the grain and non-payment of the amount has clearly come up on record. Having perused the impugned judgment of the courts below, it is cl...
Ashok Kumar Kaurav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Writ Petition No :1244. / 2013 Ashok Kumar Kaurav versus State of MP and others 01.02.2013. Shri Sajidulla Khan for the petitioner. Petitioner is holder of certain agricultural land and his grievance is that as the Irrigation Department through the respondents is pumping water into a canal, the field of the petitioner is being damaged and, therefore, seeking a prohibition from pumping water into the canal, this writ petition is filed. Petitioner wants this Court to prohibit the department from pumping water into the canal and sending it to the field of various agriculturists of the area. No statutory right available to the petitioner or any provision of law, which is violated is pointed out. Merely because some damage is being caused to the land of the petitioner, in the absence of any constitutional right, statutory rule or regulation being shown to be violated, seeking a writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition is not maintainable. If the petitioner feels that use of the canal is caus...
Shrikant Dumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.1145/2013 M.Cr.C No.1145/2013 01.02.2013 Petitioner by Shri Vineet Mishra, Advocate. Respondent/State by Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer. This petition has been preferred seeking restoration of Criminal Appeal No.1708/2009. By order dated 11/11/2009 of the Principal Registrar (Judicial) dismissed the appeal in pursuant of peremptory order of this Court dated 23/10/2009 in Criminal Appeal No.1708/2009. Vide order dated 23/10/2009, it is directed as below:- Let default be made good within 7 days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the bench. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the lapse on the part of the counsel of the petitioner, applicant is in jail and undergoing 8 years jail sentence under section 376(1) IPC passed by trial court and prevented from prosecuting the criminal appeal filed by him. In the interest of justice, no person can be left unrepresented and unheard on account of laps...
Komal Patel Vs. Munnilal Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 01/2/2013 Shri Umakant Sharma, Senior Counsel with Shri P.N.Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, for quashment of order dated 26.11.12 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anupur in Criminal Revision No.43/11, setting aside the order dated 8.7.2011 passed by S.D.M Anupur by which possession of the petitioner was protected and respondent was restrained from making disturbance in it. Let notice of this petition be issued to respondent by RAD. Steps within three working days. Notice be made returnable within three weeks. List the matter in the week commencing from 11/3/2013. In view of the fact that the Court of SDM on perusal of statement of petitioner and his witnesses prima facie possession was found in his favour, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed and parties are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of listing of the matter. 2 CC as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
Smt. Rekha Sohane Vs. Tanveer Akhtar Sheikh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Cr.R.No.54 o01. 02.13 Shri Rakesh Sagar, counsel for the applicant. The case is listed today for consideration of IA No.726/13 applicant's application for condoning the delay in filing the instant revision and IA No.725/13 for compromise of the impugned offence. It is apparent from the record that this revision is filed by the applicant without surrendering himself before the trial court to face the awarded jail sentence in compliance of the impugned judgment. It is settled proposition of the law that unless the accused surrenders himself before the trial court for facing the awarded jail sentence, the criminal revision could not be entertained for any purpose. In this regard the Gwalior Bench of this Court has laid down some principle in the matter of Deepak Sahu and others versus State of M.P-2012(3) MPLJ 53 which is based on some earlier decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this court, hence, office is directed that this matter be placed before the bench only after submitting t...
Sonu @ Sujit and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
(1) Cr.A.No.854/2002 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena Hon'ble Justice Smt. Vimla Jain CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.854/2002 1. Sonu @ Sujit son of Shamthunath Bangali, aged about 22 years, resident of Bodkhi, Amla, District Betul (M.P.) 2. Shailendra son of Arjun Vijaykar, aged about 22 years, resident of Banda Road, Bodkhi, Amla, District Betul (M.P.) ....Appellants -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Amla, Tahsil Multai, District Betul (M.P.) .Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the appellants: Shri V.K.Lakhera, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing:29. 01/2013 Date of Judgment:01. 02/2013 ********** JUDGMENT Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 5...
Narendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Cr.R.No.1542 o01. 02.13 Mohd. Nasir Ansari, counsel for the applicants. Shri Alok Tapikar, PL for the respondent/state. The applicants/accused have filed this revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2012 whereby the charges punishable under section 294,353,332,506-II read with section 34 of the IPC were framed against each of them.2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 4.4.2010 at about 6.30 in the evening, a FIR was registered at PS Kothi, district Satna at the instance of one Sitendra Pratap Singh against the applicants for the aforesaid offences. As per averments of the same the complainant Sitendra Pratap Singh Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Didaundh accompanied with his father Tej Bahadur Singh and one Uday Pratap Singh came to Police station and gave the report in writing against the applicants alleging that all these applicants by entering in the Panchayat Bhawan had beaten him and he was also su...
Ajit Kumar Vs. Barkatullah University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 W.P.No.5512/2012 Ajit Kumar & another Barkatullah University & others 1.2.2013 Shri R.D.Ahirwar, Counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Mahendra Pateria, Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Pateria, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that he has received instructions in the matter and as per his instructions, petitioners were not permitted to appear in the examinations because as per University, they had not deposited the fees. However, on an enquiry, it was revealed that petitioners had deposited their fees with respondent No.3 College which were subsequently transmitted to the University. not the petitioners have been permitted to appear in the examinations as directed in this petition on 20.4.2012. Respondents No.1 & 2 are ready to declare result of the petitioneRs.In view of aforesaid statement made by Shri Pateria, no further order is required. Respondents No.1 & 2 are permitted to declare result of the examinations namely M.Ed. in which petitioners has appear...
Mrs. Indira Panicker Vs. Madhya Pradehs Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwavi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
WP 423.11 Writ Petition No.423 of 2011 (MRS.Indira Panicker v. Madhya Pradesh Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur and two others.) 01-02-2013 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. Petitioner, retired Assistant Grade III seeks direction to respondents to settle her entire retiral dues including gratuity and the provident fund. The gratuity has been claimed under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Respondents on being noticed have filed reply stating therein that dues which the petitioner was entitled for have been paid. It is stated that :- (a) Dues towards CPF Account along with Vishwavidyalaya share Rs.240422=00 on 30/10/2010 (b) GIS Rs.29658 on 15/11/2010 (c) Different of CPF amount 3318=00 on 19/08/2011. (d) Encashment of leave Rs.69,505=00 on 29/08/2011. (e) Difference of leave Encashment Rs.19505=00 on 29/08/2011. (f) 6th pay arrears Rs.189356=00 on 27/08/2011. Regarding payment of gratuity i...
J.B.S.Chandel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Cr.R.No.65 o01. 02.13 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pushpendra Dubey, counsel for the applicant. Heard. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the matter instead to hear this revision on admission, at the request of the parties, the same is taken-up for admission as well as for final disposal. The applicant one of the accused has filed this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.12 passed by I ASJ.Shahdol in S.T.No.184/12, registered on the basis of private complaint filed by one Smt Krishna Yadav, against dismissal of his application filed under section 205 read with section 317 of the Cr.P.C for giving exemption from the appearance before the court on the aforesaid date 22.12.12. It appears from the order-sheet that on such date, the application of one of the co-accused Gyanendra Singh filed for giving exemption from personal appearance was allowed because the same was filed along with some requisite documents but the applicant's application being f...
- ‹ Prev
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- Next ›
- Last »