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.
Santosh Kumar Vs. Purushottam Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Second Appeal No.1037/2009 Santosh Kumar Vs. Purushottam Soni and another Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellant : Shri Sankalp Kochar, advocate. For the respondents : Shri R.P. Agrawal Senior counsel with Shri Santosh Yadav, advocate. JUDGMENT (26.02.2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 29.06.2009 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Sagar in M.A. No.01/2009 affirming and confirming the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in case No.1- A/90(1)2007-08 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for increasing the rent.2. Undisputedly, the respondents are the tenants of the appellant and are in occupation of a shop situated at Gandhi Chowk Ward, Bada Bazar, opposite Paras Talkies, Main Road, Sagar, having been inducted as 2 such by the appellant in the year 1960. It is also undisputed that the rent of the accommodation was initially fixed at the rate o...
Brajbhan Singh Vs. P.N.Rajput and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.426/1999 Brijbhan Singh Gaur VERSUS P.N.Bajpai & others --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.8. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 27th day of February, 2013) The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 3.2.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T.No.15/1998, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under section 321 of the Cr.P.C. was accepted and the respondents No.1 to 7 were discharged in the matter.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the complainant/applicant had lodged a criminal complaint before the Magisterial Court that a dispute relating to the hous...
Ramcharan Dheemar Vs. Dr. R.K.Rokde
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Con.C.No.294/12 26/02/13 Shri Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Keeping in view the order passed by the respondents as contained in Annexure R-1 rejecting the claim of the petitioners after examination and keeping in view the liberty granted to the respondents, I am not inclined to initiate action for contempt on the ground that the claim is improperly rejected. If the claim has been improperly rejected, it gives a cause to the petitioners to agitate the matter afresh but not a cause for initiating action for contempt. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioners to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, this application stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Anand Kumar Dubey Vs. Jabalpur Co-operative Milk Pro.Union Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
W.A Nos.546/2006 & 1688/2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. Writ Appeal No.546/2006 Anand Kumar Dubey Versus Jabalpur Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Writ Appeal No.1688/2007 R.N.Pandey Versus Jabalpur Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Jabalpur & another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ PRESENT: Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Yadav Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (26.02.2013) Per Sharad A. Bobde, Chief Justice :- 1. The matter has been referred to a larger Bench for re- consideration of the decision rendered in Virendra Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Mad...
Ku.Kajal Shilpi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
......1 W.P. No.3078 o26. 02.2013 Shri Aditya Sanghi, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Roi, Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Ku. Nidhi Mohta vs. State of M.P. & others (W.P. No.3993 of 2009) decided on 15.2.2012 and similar directions may be issued. It is submitted by Shri Roi that before refund of the fees, respondent No.3 may be directed to ascertain whether the State Government has reimbursed the fees to the petitioner or not in view of the specific clause as provided in Rule 6 of P.M.T. Rules,2002 which provides reimbursement of the fees to the SC/ST candidates. In W.P. 3993 of 2009 Ku. Nidhi Mohta (supra) the Division Bench of this Court considering the similar controversy held thus :- Petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) Mandamus commanding the respondents to charge the fee of free. seat for the MBBS Course from the petitioner and to ...
Mithun Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1129/2013 26.2.2013 Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 16.7.2012 in connection with Crime No.510/2012 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Sehore for the offence punishable under sections 416, 419, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. At the time of incident, he was in jail. It is alleged that other co-accused persons prepared the forged documents and filed the same along with the bail papers before the Court for releasing the applicant on bail. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention rai...
Badri Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1074/2013 26.2.2013 Shri K.S.Rajput, counsel for the applicants. Shri Gitesh Singh Thakur, GA for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.At the outset learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is permitted to withdraw the application of applicant No.2 Anarbai W/o Badri Prasad with liberty to repeat his prayer after recording the evidence of injured Jaishre. The application of applicant No.2 Anarbai W/o Badri Prasad is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. As far as applicant no.1 Badri Prasad S/o Champalal is concerned, he is in custody since 10.12.2012 in connection with Crime No.272/2012 registered at Police Station Chhaigaon Makhan District Khandwa for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 307/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the main allegation is made against applicant no.2 Anarbai, who said to have poured ker...
Brindrawan Patel Vs. Dipali Rastogi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
Contempt Petition No.46/2007 Brindawan Patel versus Dipali Rastogi and others 26.02.2013. None appears for the applicant. Shri A.P.Shroti for the non-applicants. This contempt arises out of an interim order passed on 2.12.2006, in Writ Petition No.15439/2006. Records of Writ Petition No.15439/2006 goes to show that the said writ petition has been finally disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order-dated 15.1.2007. That being so, not no further action in this matter is required to be taken. In case, after the final order passed in the writ petition on 15.1.2007, any grievance still subsists to the applicant for implementation of the order, he is granted liberty to seek enforcement of the order passed on 15.1.2007, finally disposing of the writ petition. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant, for the present finding no case to proceed in the matter, non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and this contempt application disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Bharat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1032/2013 26.2.2013 Shri Madan Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.13/2006 registered at P.S.Pathariya, District Damoh for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506-(B).324, 323, 326 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. He is not the main accused. The allegation of making assault by Sword is against Co.accused Dabbu and other persons. Nothing has been alleged against the applicant. Initially, the offence under Section 326 of the IPC was not registered, later-on on the basis of medical report, same has been added. The applicant is ready to Co.operate in the investigation and trial. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputa...
G.P.Vishwakarma Vs. Shri Anandchandra Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.8910/2005 M.Cr.C.No.8910/2005 26.02.2013 Shri Prabhakar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Shweta Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2/State by Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer. Present petition has been preferred against the order dated 12/05/2005 passed by C.J.M, Rewa in an unregistered case by which police has been directed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to register FIR and to investigate the matter. On 12/05/2005 a private complaint (Annexure A-1) has been preferred by respondent no.1, who happened to be a Sub Engineer in the department placed under suspension, in the court of C.J.M, Rewa against 14 government servants including Chief Engineers to Peon under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 409, 120B, 34, 201, 109, 114, 166, 167, 182 IPC. Impugned order has been challenged on the grounds that complaint does not reveal the facts regarding commission of any offence against the petitioner. On the basis of such vague complaint, trial court issued di...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »