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. Harni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No :2711. / 2013 Smt. Harni versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others 22.02.2013. Shri Atul Anand Awasthy for the applicant. Challenging an interlocutory order-dated 30.1.2013 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh rejecting an application for appointment of a Commission for demarcation under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question. In the suit an application for appointing a Commission for spot inspection has been rejected by the court below on the ground that at this stage no such commission is required to be appointed and for the purpose of collecting evidence a Commission cannot be appointed. Discretion exercised by the Court and the reason given for dismissal of the application cannot be termed as perveRs.or illegal to such an extent that interference in the matter at this stage is not called for. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere, ...
Jagatbandhu Vs. Deenbandhu Morchhale
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
S.A. No.92/2012 (1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Second Appeal No.92/2012 Appellant Jagatbandhu, S/o. Late Rameshwar Das Morchhale, R/o. In front of Narmadiya Dharmshala, Timarani District Harda (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS :1. Deenbandhu MOrchhale, S/o. Late Rameshwar Das Morchhale, R/o. Maharana Pratap Colony, Harda District Harda (M.P.) 2. Smt. Gulabbai Tale, W/o. Joshilal Tale, R/o. IN front of New Subhash Nagar Petrol Pump, Bhopal 3. State of M.P. through Collector Harda, District Harda _________________________________________________________ Shri Lalji Kushwaha, Advocate for appellant-defendant. Shri Aadil Usmani, Advocate for respondent no.1-plalntiff. Shri K.S. Jha, Advocate for respondent no.2-defendant. Shri Alok Tapekar, Panel Lawyer for respondent no.3/State. _________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 22nd day of February, 2013) This second appeal under Section 100 CPC ha...
The State of M.P. Vs. Smt.Suniya Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Cr.R.No.709/1999 22.2.2013 Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State. None for the respondent. Heard the matter finally. The applicant/State has moved this revision application against the order dated 20.1.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panna in ST No.110/1998 whereby the respondent was discharged from the charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C.The prosecution's story in short is that deceased Ram Bai, daughter-in-law of the respondent, committed suicide on 17.11.1998. It was alleged against the respondent that she was continuously abusing the deceased. The deceased was having no problem with the husband and father-in-law but due to abuses of the respondent she committed suicide. After due investigation a charge sheet was prepared and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After considering the submissions made by learned Panel Lawyer and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that learned Sessions Judge has discussed in detail...
M/S F.C.L. Technologies and Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
1 MCC No.1404/2012 M/s F.C.L.Technologies & Products LTD.Union of India & another 22.2.2013 Shri Prem Francis, Counsel for applicant. Shri K.K.Singh, Counsel for respondents. This application is filed for restoration of W.P.No.5993/2000 which was dismissed in default on 5.7.2012 when the case was listed for final hearing. It was an old matter of 2000 and it was dismissed because of non-appearance of the counsel for applicant. However, considering averments made in the application, in particular, in para 2 of the application, supported by affidavit, we find that the applicant should not be penalised because of the lapse on the part of the counsel. In view of aforesaid, in the interest of justice, we allow this application on following condition:- (i) Applicant to deposit Rs.2000/- in the Library fund of the High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur within a period of one week from today and to file receipt thereof in the office within aforesaid period. (ii) On compliance of aforesa...
M/S. Malca Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.P. Police Housing Corp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Arbitration Case No :61. / 2010 M/s Malca Construction (India) P Ltd versus MP Police Housing Corpn 22.02.2013. Shri Shekhar Sharma for the applicant. Shri K.S.Wadhwa for the non-applicant. Keeping in view the objection raised by Shri K.S.Wadhwa and the arbitration clause as contained in Clause 29 of the agreement in question, as the parties have agreed to refer the dispute to the MP Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, applicant should file an application before the Tribunal. Accordingly, granting liberty to approach the said Tribunal, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Ram Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No.2580/2013 22.02.2013 Mr.Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 28.1.2013, by which the petitioner has been relieved to join at Community Health Centre Palera. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a multi-purpose worker and was posted at Sub-Health Centre, Lakhaura. By the order dated 07.06.2011, petitioner was transferred to Community Health Centre Palera. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation. Thereupon on the Competent Authority directed not to relieve the petitioner. As a result of which, the petitioner continued to serve at Sub-Health Centre, Lakhaura. However, without deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 28.1.2013 has been issued by which the petitioner is sought to be relieved. Learned counsel for the petitio...
Laxmandas Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Writ Petition No.2466/2013 22.2.2013 Shri Arvind Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents. Heard on admission. The petitioner is a resident of Village Bela, District Tikamgarh. The case of petitioner is that Karan Singh Niranjan is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bela and RaJesh Kumar is Secretary of that Gram Panchayat. The petitioner alleges that they both played fraud and cheated him by Rs.53,690/- regarding which he had made a complaint dated 22.9.2011, Annexure P3, through his counsel to respondent no.2 Collector, Tikamgarh for taking appropriate action against them but nothing has been done. In the complaint the petitioner has prayed to respondent no.2 to direct Karan Singh and Rajesh Kumar to return the amount of Rs.53,690/- and also to register a criminal case against them. It is in this background the petitioner has prayed that respondent no.2 be directed to take suitable action to recover the amount from Kar...
Smt. Premwati Sahu Vs. Smt. Fahmida Begum
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
W.P.No.14985/12 22/02/13 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging the order dated 29/08/12 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Mudwara, Distt. Katni in Civil Suit No.15-A/05 rejecting a prayer made by the petitioner in an application filed under Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. for summoning the original records from the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria and from the Health Department, this writ petition is filed. Respondents No.13 and 14 are said to have executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the disputed property which is in possession of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the property originally belong to one Late Mohammad Jamil. Respondent No.1 along with other respondents have filed the suit for declaration that respondent No.1 is the widow of Late Mohammad Jamil and the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is not valid. On the other hand, it is the case of th...
Smt. Dolly Stuart Vs. Shri Nelson Verghese
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
Smt. Dolly Stuart versus Shri Nelson Verghese & Others Writ Petition No.197 22. 2.2013: Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order Annexure P-1 dated 6.12.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I Bhopal in allowing an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by respondent Nos.9 & 10, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is non-applicant No.3 and is a party in an application filed by respondent No.1 Shri Nelson Verghese in the matter of granting Succession Certificate. In the said proceedings finding the respondent Nos.9 & 10 to be a necessary party, the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is allowed. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to emphasize that respondent Nos.9 & 10 have no right to succession and are not legal representatives of the deceased, but a perusal of order and on going through the reasons indicated therein goes to show that they are necessary party as they have certain interest in the es...
Dharmendra Bhura Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.262/2013 22/2/2013 Shri Ishan Soni, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Chourasia, Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on AIR 191.Calcutta 310 Jagannath Rahatgir versus Deokinandan and another, submits that insufficiently stamped documents can very well be admitted in criminal case. Leaned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays a week's time to make position clear. As prayed time is granted. Till the next date of hearing proceeding pending in trial Court shall remain stayed. Certified copy as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »