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.
Ramesh Kumar @ Babua Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11863/2012 21/02/2013 Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.K.Singh, GA for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 8/11/11 in connection with Crime No.313/12 registered at P.S.Dindori, District Dindori for the offence punishable under section 307, 498-A/34, 304-B, 302 of IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is maternal uncle-in-law (mamiya sasur) of deceased Santoshi Bai who said to have been murdered by applicant and other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that applicant is resident of Madiyaras and incident said to have been took place at Kukarmat which is 30 kms away from the resident of deceased. The incident said to have been took place on morning at 7 AM. However, the name of this applicant is find place i...
Kishan Lal Soni Vs. Nav Bharat Press (Private)ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
W.P.No.6436/2008 21.2.2013 Shri Munish Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ranveer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. This Court while considering the pendency of this petition has already directed vide order dated 19.11.2012 for listing of this writ petition for final disposal in motion stage in the month of February, 2013. It is informed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that to quantify the amount claimed I.A.No.1037/2013 has been filed. Along with said interlocutory application, a chart of monetary claim has been field by the petitioner. Let the reply of the said I.A.be filed by respondent no.2 within a week. List immediately thereafter for final consideration of the writ petition. (K.K.Trivedi) JUDGE P/...
Madan Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
W.P.No.17704/2011 21.2.2013 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Since the return filed by the respondents categorically states that in terms of GOP, the petitioner could not be brought in the fit list because of the major penalty imposed on him which according to the M.P.Police Regulation is major penalty, it would be appropriate to hear this writ petition along with the writ petition in which the petitioner has already challenged the order of major penalty. This being so, let this writ petition be listed along with W.P.No.16389/2011 for analogous hearing in the next week. (K.K.Trivedi) JUDGE P/...
N.P.Tiwari Vs. Secretary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
W.P.No.4370/2009 21.02.2013 Shri Brijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. It appears that though initially the order passed after the review Departmental Promotion Committee is challenged in the writ petition, in the prayer clause appropriate relief in that respect has not been claimed. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for sometime to make suitable amendment in the prayer clause so as to seek relief with respect to the impugned order dated 20.8.2008. This Court has directed production of the record of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Since the record was not made available, a cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. Now, the record of Departmental Promotion Committee is produced. However, the cost has not been paid. For the payment of cost, learned Govt. Advocate prayed for and is granted time. Let the petition be listed in the next week. The record of Departmental Promotion Committee be retained by the learned G...
Virendra Kachwaha Vs. Smt.Geeta Kachwaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1485/2012 Virendra Kachwaha VERSUS Smt. Geeta Kachwaha --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rajeev Bakur, counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K.Shukla, counsel for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 25th day of February, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa in M.J.C. No.84/2010, whereby a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- was granted to the respondent under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.2. The respondent has preferred an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court that her marriage took place with the applicant on 20.5.2005 but, she was not kept with comfort in the house of the applicant. She was being harassed for demand of dowry. She...
inderjit Singh Duggal Vs. Municipal Corpn. Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
1 F.A..No.166/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava First Appeal No.166/1996 APPELLANT: Indrajeet Singh Duggal aged about 50 years, S/o Sardar Lal Singh, R/o E-7/512, Arera Colony, Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, Through it's Commissioner. Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. JUDGMENT (21.02.2013) 1. This first appeal has been filed under Section 96 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.1996, passed by learned First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal in C.S. No.58-A/1989, whereby the suit of plaintiff has been dismissed.2. In brief, the suit of plaintiff is that on 28.07.1986, he obtained permission to raise construction of his house and thereafter in accordance with the sanctioned map, he built 2 F.A..No.166/1996 his house in between 28.07.1986 to 24.04.1989. During the period of three years, when the con...
Neelam Kumari Vs. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
W.P.No.15016/2012 21.02.2013 Petitioner along with Shri Rahul Gupta, Advocate present. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Advocate for the respondent. The controveRs.in the present case is in a very short compass. The petitioner who was a student of M.B.B.S.I PROF. appeared in the main examination conducted in February, 2011. As per the mark-sheet issued by the University, it revealed that she had not cleared the subjects namely Anatomy and Biochemistry and was declared fail in both the subjects. Petitioner had moved an application for revaluation in both the subjects namely Anatomy and Biochemistry. In the fiRs.revaluation, she was declared pass in Anatomy, however, in Biochemistry she was declared fail, but because of certain complaints, the University itself had cancelled the entire result of fiRs.revaluation. Thereafter petitioner's answer sheets were revalued and as per the result of this revaluation, it appears that she was declared pass in Biochemistry and Physiology but in Anatomy Theory she got...
B.G.Shrivastava Vs. Lallu Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
1 S.A No.180/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.180/1997 APPELLANTS : SHANKERLAL (Since deceased) B. G. SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) Vs. RESPONDENTS : LALLU LAL AND OTHERS Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellants : Shri O. P. Mishra and Shri Sanjeev Saxena, Advocates. For the respondents : Shri R. S. Tiwari and Shri Anurag Tiwari, Advocates. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (21/02/2013) The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Umaria, District Shahdol in First Appeal No.7-A/95 by which he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1995 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Umaria, in Civil Suit No.41-A/1991, dismissing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiffs.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that the respondent/plaintiffs ...
Rasool Kha Vs. Smt. Altaf Bee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
FiRs.Appeal No.409/2011 21.2.2013 Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Heard on I.A.No.6378/2011, which is an application for grant of temporary injunction. The appellants suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent has been dismissed by the trial court. Even during the trial no temporary injunction was granted in his favour. The trial court has given a specific finding that the appellant has neither any title over the suit property not he is in possession of the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the finding of the trial court, we are not inclined to grant temporary injunction in favour of the appellant as prayed for in the application. The application is accordingly dismissed. (AJIT SINGH) (T.K.KAUSHAL) JUDGE JUDGE ss...
Ramesh Agrawal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.845/1998 Ramesh Agarwal. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 21st day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for commission of offence under Section 16(1)(a)(Part-I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1954.) vide judgment dated 25.4.1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Chhattarpur in Criminal Case No.271/1988 and sentenced with one year's RI with fine of Rs.1000/-. In Criminal Appeal No.50/1996, the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur vide judgment dated 16.7.1998 partly allowed the appeal of the applicant by w...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »