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.
Smt. Sarita Ganesh Matre Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 W.P.No.1677/2013 1.2.2013 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Challenging an order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat in Civil Suit No.28-A/2011 holding that the written statement filed by the petitioners shall not be considered and closing their right to file the written statement which is already available on record, this writ petition has been filed. Right to file written statement on record is rejected only on the ground that under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC if written statement is not filed within a statutory period it shall not be taken on record. Petitioners are the statutory authority namely the Gram Panchayat and elected office bearers like Sarpanch and respondents have filed the case for recovery of Rs.12 Lacs. Pointing out certain administrative exigencies which prevented the Gram Panchayat from filing the written statement within the stipulated time, petitioners have filed this writ petition. It is a we...
Mukesh Kumar Gutam Vs. M. M. Upadhyay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1...Con.C.No.586 of 2011 Mukesh Kumar Goutam M.M.Upadhyaya & others 01.02.2013 Shri Amit Khatri, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Neeraj Singh, Counsel appears for respondent Nos.2 and 6 without any notice. I.A.5099/11 and I.A.438/2013 : For deleting the name of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 from the array of respondents. Prayer made in both the applications is not opposed, hence it is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to delete the name of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 from the array of respondents. Necessary correction be made within a period of one week. As the names of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 have already been directed to be deleted, the presence of respondent Nos.2 and 6 is not required. Shri Neeraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 6 further submits that there are subsequent events in the matter. In this case the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of non-compliance of order dated 9.12.2010 passed in W.P.17360/10(PIL).A Review petition was filed b...
R.K. Dubey Vs. M/S Tridev Duplex Boards Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1 01/2/2013 Shri Abhijit Thakur, for the petitioner. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, against the order dated 17.9.12 passed by the JMFC Bhopal in Criminal Case No.7578/2012 under Sections 403 and 406 of IPC registered on the basis of report of respondent. 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 for consideration of stay application. In view of the fact that the amount Rs.20,0000/- was deposited by the respondent in the year 2008 10 was demanded by the respondent for the fiRs.time on 26.3.12, further proceeding shall remain stayed till the next date of listing of the matter. CC as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/- 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- Next ›