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.
Ram Charan Shakya Vs. Dr. K. Suresh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
CONC. No.1306/2012 01.02.2013 Shri S.D.Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in continuation of the order Annexure R-1 dated 27.09.2012, the entire amount of the applicant has been calculated and an amount of Rs.3,18,893/- has been deposited in his account on 24.01.2013. It is submitted that the order passed by this Court has been fully complied with. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he may be allowed a short time to verify the aforesaid fact. But considering the statement made by Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, we find that the order passed by this Court has been complied with. Even if the grievance of the applicant has not been redressed fully, the applicant is free to approach this Court by filing a fresh petition. In view of the aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, the proceedings are closed. No order as to cos...
Santosh Kumar Parashar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 W.P.No.15031/2006(S) 01.02.2013 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Gov. Advocate for the respondent State of M.P.Heard. Order dated 03.05.2006 is being challenged vide this writ petition. Vide impugned order petitioner who was granted minimum of the pay scale to the post of Typist has been relegated to the Collector's rate of wages. Back ground facts briefly are that petitioner engaged as skilled labour in Narmada Valley Development Department was paid wages as per Collector's rate. Asserting that he is working as Typist , petitioner lay a claim for equal pay for equal work, vide original application No.1035/1999 before M.P.Administrative Tribunal. Said Original Application was decided on 15.10.2001 whereby, though his claim for equal pay for equal work was declined ; however, the respondents were directed to grant minimum of the pay scale of the post against which the petitioner was required to work. Consequently by order dated 30...
Akhilesh and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1525/2002 1.2.2013 Today the case is listed for clarification/correction of the sessions trial number in which the appellants were prosecuted and ultimately convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panna vide judgment dated 30.9.2002. The judgment reveals that the number of sessions trial was 15/2001 but in the memo of appeal filed by the appellants, the number of sessions trial is wrongly typed as 15/2002. In the result despite there being direction for the release of appellant no.1 Akhilesh on bail vide order dated 13.12.2012 the jail authorities could not release him from jail. We accordingly clarify that Additional Sessions Judge, Panna vide judgment dated 30.9.2002 had convicted the appellants in Sessions Trial No.15/2001. and No.15/2002. as wrongly mentioned in the memo of appeal. The number of Sessions Trial mentioned as 15/2002. in the memo of appeal is corrected by us in the interest of justice as 15/2001. A copy of the bail order dated 13.12.2012 with co...
Smt. Savita Devi Vs. Ashutosh Dwivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.1308/2011 01/2/2013 Shri Prabhakar Singh, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri O.P.Tripathi, counsel for respondent. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, against the order dated 12.1.2011 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No.35/09 modifying the order of JMFC, Teonthar passed in MJ.No.12/07 and granted maintenance Rs.1500/- per month to respondent No.2 and affirmed the order of rejection of maintenance to petitioner No.1 wife. Being concurrent finding of the facts that the petitioner No.1 wife is working as teacher and earning Rs.5845/- per month, the Courts below declined for any maintenance to her. In respect of petitioner No.2, aged 5 years boy though trial Court declining for the maintenance but the revisional Court granted Rs.1500/- per month to him. At this stage, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the respondent that impugned order has been challenged by him by way of revision in the Court. But in view of ...
Hariram (Deceased) Through His Legal Representative : Gurmukhdas Basra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Writ Petition No :1497. / 2013 Hariram (deceased) through LRs versus Chandiram and others 01.02.2013. Shri Brahmadatt Singh for the petitioner. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the FiRs.Appellate Court in the matter of refusing injunction to the petitioner, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in peaceful possession of the property in question and as possession of the petitioner is established placing reliance on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, in the cases of Rame Gowda (D) by LRs versus M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and anotheRs.AIR 200.SC 4609.and, M. Kallappa Setty versus M.V.Lakshminarayana Rao, AIR 197.SC 2299.learned counsel argues that as petitioner is found to be in peaceful possession of the suit property, his possession should have been protected and as injunction is rejected only on the ground that petitioner has not established his title to the property, it is stated that the findin...
Kamla Bai Vs. Ramprasad Verma and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Second Appeal No.248/1998 (Smt. Kamlabai versus Ramprasad Verma and otheRs.01.02.2013 Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.01.1998 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Appeal No.8-A/93 affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.04.1993 passed in Civil Suit No.269-A/92 by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Satna. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title as well as declaration of sale deed dated 02.09.1977 executed by her aunt Sahdai in favour of the respondents as null and void as well as the will said to have been executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2. The appellant had also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in her possession in respect of Araji No.574 admeasu...
Pinde @ Satyendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.13958/2012 1.2.2013 Shri S.K.Jha, for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shorti, Government Advocate, for the State. This is an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail on behalf of applicant Pinde alias Satyendra. The applicant has been arrested on 18.6.2012 for an offence under section 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bina, District Sagar, vide Crime No.463/2008. The applicant was earlier directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.6.2009 passed in M.Cr.C.No.4093/2009 but since he did not appear on the dates fixed for his appearance before the trial court, his bail was cancelled and thereafter arrested on 18.6.2012. It is stated in the application that henceforth the applicant will regularly appear on each and every date before the trial court. Having regard to the fact that applicant is in jail since 18.6.2012, it is directed that if the applicant executes a personal bond in the sum o...
Rachana Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
WP No.18636/12 30.1.13. Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that he has received instructions from respondent no.3 that all the petitioners were admitted by Centralized Counselling. The Counselling was conducted by Baraktullah University, Bhopal. However, the petitioners were allocated the college of respondent no.3. They have also appeared in the examination and respondent no.3 is ready to declare their result within a period of thirty days from today. In view of aforesaid statement made by respondent no.3, petitioners are satisfied and no further order is required. This petition is finally disposed of in terms of statement made by respondent no.3, with no order as to costs. C.c.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Judge. Jk....
Ram Milan Vs. Geeta Kprasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Writ Petition No :102. / 2009 Ram Milan and others versus Geeta Prasad and others 01.02.2013. Shri R.L.Ariha for the petitioneRs.Shri Vinot Dubey for the respondents. Challenging an order-dated 12.12.2008 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge Class I, Rewa in Civil Suit No.120- A/2003, rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to examine one Shri Jagdish Prasad as a witness, to prove certain signatures in the revenue record, this writ petition is filed. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed the suit in question with regard to declaration of their title as Bhumiswami and permanent injunction. The suit is pending in Rewa as indicated hereinabove. PetitioneRs.who are defendants 1, 2 and 5, filed an application before the trial court on 1.8.2008 and wanted to bring on record copies of revenue entries for the period 1963-64 to 1967-68 and again for the period 1968-69. It was stated in the application that these documents were handed over to them by the then Patwari one Shri Bhagwandeen, after due...
Jabid Beg Vs. Suraiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 01/2/2013 Shri Lalji Kushwah, counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, against the order dated 28.3.11 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Criminal Revision No.141/10 modifying the order dated 29.10.10 of JMFC, Harsud passed in MJ.No.34/08 directing to grant to mainptenance Rs.2500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2000/- per month to respondent No.2. Let notice of this petition be issued to respondent No.1 on behalf of both, 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 for consideration of stay application. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 135
- 136
- 137
- Next ›
- Last »