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. Rashmi Agarwal Vs. Nilesh Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Review Petition No :123. / 2013 Smt. Rashmi Agarwal versus Shri Nilesh Dubey and others 20.02.2013. Shri Rajesh Chand for the applicant. This application has been filed seeking review/recall of an order-dated 8.2.2013, passed in W.P.No.1959/2013. Applicant herein Smt. Rashmi Agarwal was respondent No.6 in the writ petition, and the said petition was disposed of without notice to the applicant. As certain order passed in the writ petition has adveRs.affect on her rights, it was not appropriate for this Court to have disposed of the writ petition without hearing her. As the order will have the effect of removing certain encroachments, which according to the applicant is authorized construction on the land which is purchased by her bearing KhaSr.No.601, I see an error apparent on the face of the record. In view of the above, the order-dated 8.2.2013, passed in W.P.No.1959/2013, is recalled. The said writ petition is restored to its file. It be listed for orders before the Appropriate Benc...
Bal Kishan Chhapariya Vs. the High Court of M.P. and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :588. of 2005 Bal Kishan Chhapariya - V/s - High Court of MP and Another Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Honble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.S.Shroti, Senior Advocate, with Shri Ashish Shroti for respondent No.1. Shri A.K.Chourasiya, GA, for respondent No.2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 20/02/2013 Per Rajendra Menon, J.Challenging the order passed by the competent authority vide Annexure P/1 dated 13.9.2004, compulsorily retiring the petitioner under Rule 42(1)(b) of the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 read with Rule 56(2) of the MP Fundamental Rules; and, challenging the resolution of the Full Court dated 11.9.2004, recommending for compulsory retirement of the peti...
Prashant Soni @ Ajju Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Criminal Revision No.533/2012 20.02.2013 Shri Sunil Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicant has challenged the order dated 23.1.2012 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in ST No.214/2011 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 305 of IPC were framed against the applicant. The brief facts relating to the present revision are that the deceased-prosecutrix had committed suicide in her bathroom and when the door of the bathroom was opened, then she told that she committed suicide due to the act of the applicant, and therefore he should not be left unpunished. Thereafter a case of offence under Section 305 of IPC registered. Some love letters were seized by the police and those were sent for the handwriting examination. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the prosecut...
Ramakant Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No :2531. / 2013 Ramakant Verma and ors versus State of MP and others 20.02.2013. Shri Subodh Pandey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Against the order impugned-dated 5.2.2013 Annexure P/4, petitioner has a statutory remedy of approaching the MP State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Tansukhlal Talati versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal and otheRs.ILR (2012) MP 1872.and submits that at the same time two permits cannot be granted. This question can be adjudicated and considered by the Tribunal, if appeal or revision is filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Chhannulal @ Kachrulal and Ors, Vs. Shrikrishan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 S.A.No.838/1996 Chhannulal @ Kachrulal versus Shrikishan 20.02.2013 Shri U.K.Shukla learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1995 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sehore in Regular Civil Appeal No.21-A/1991, whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.10.1991 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Budhni in Civil Suit No.4-A/1987 has been affirmed and confirmed. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that it be declared that the respondent/plaintiff was the owner of 2 ft. of land adjacent to the wall of the appellant's house and injuncting him from constructing his house in a manner so that the water from the roof of the appellant would not fall on the land and the wall of the respondent/plaintiff. Both the courts below have decr...
Mukesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Criminal Revision No.281/2013 20.02.2013 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bijawar, District Chhatarpur in S.T.No.28/13, whereby various charges were framed against the applicants but at present, the applicant has challenged the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 306/34 of IPC only. The prosecution's case, in short is that, it is alleged that on 29.11.2012, the applicants had committed an assault on the prosecutrix to outrage her modesty but on her shouting, they left the prosecutrix and ran away from the spot. The prosecutrix intimated about the incident to her parents and thereafter, father of the prosecutrix went to the house of the applicants and told about their acts to their parents. In the night, the prosecutr...
Smt.Nirmala Vs. Sukhendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11100/2012 20.02.2013 Petitioners by Shri Umesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Respondent No.1 by Shri R.K.Jain, Advocate. Present petition has been preferred against the orders of trial court declining maintenance. By way of I.A.No.19187/2012, learned counsel for by the petitioner prayed for DNA test of the respondent No.2 for proving parent of petitioner No.2. In view of the fact that this point has never been brought before the trial court and was not the subject matter of impugned order, this petition is dismissed with liberty to file such application raising aforesaid point before the trial court. The trial court is directed to decide such application after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the trial court on or before 03.04.2013 for this purpose. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge YS/...
Rajmani Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 Cr.R. No.2232 of 2012 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2232/2012 Rajmani Tiwari. -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 20th day of February, 2013) By this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria in ST No.155/2009 whereby his application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the relevant time, the applicant was working as a Branch Manager of the concerned Bank at Umaria. A scheme was brought by the higher authorities that Kisan Credit Cards be distributed amongst various agriculturists and a target of 15 l...
Ghasiram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Cr.R.No.2393/2012 20.2.2013 Shri Amit Jain, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge Khurai, District Sagar in ST No.445/2012 whereby charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C was framed against the applicant. Facts of the case are that the deceased was the daughter-in-law of the applicant whose marriage took place 15 years ago. She had three children. It is admitted fact that the deceased was not residing with the applicant. She was residing with her husband in a separate house. It is alleged against the applicant that he was in habit to abuse the deceased and therefore, he was harassing her. There was a common entrance in the house of the applicant and the deceased and when she was moving from the main door then the applicant was harassing her. Therefore, o...
Smit Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.16338/2012 20.2.2013 Shri Anubhav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the State. Shri Ashish Patel, Advocate, for respondent no.4. According to the petitioner, he is a resident of Madhya Pradesh and has completed the Bachelor of Physiotherapy degree couRs.from Manipal College of Allied Health Science, which is a college under the Manipal University (deemed).The petitioner submits that he has applied vide Annexure P12, dated 21.9.2012, before respondent no.4 Registrar, Madhya Pradesh Paramedical Council, Bhopal, for his registration but no order has been passed on the application. It is in this background the petitioner has filed the present petition for a direction against respondent no.4 to decide his application dated 21.9.2012, Annexure P12. To this prayer, the learned Government Advocate and counsel for respondent no.4 have no objection. I, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Governmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- Next ›
- Last »