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.
Dharamdas Vs. Shri Omprakash Miglani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Conc. No. 139 Of 2011 20.2.2013 Shri Arun Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel with Shri Dileep Parihar, learned counsel for respondents. Complaining noncompliance of order dated 10.12.2009 passed in W.P. No. 14559/2005 (S), present contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order by respondents. W.P. No. 14559/2005 (S) was decided on 10.12.2009 in following terMs.In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of finally with following directions: (i) Petitioner may submit an application to respondent No. 1 for his examination by the Appellate Medical Board. Alongwith application, petitioner may enclose copy of this petition, in particular, documents Annexure P/4 and P/5 for consideration of the respondents or the Appellate Medical Board in respect of the fitness of the petitioner. (ii) Respondent No. 1 on receipt...
Sudip Gupta Vs. Shri Kheadapti Hanuman Mandir, Trust New Market Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No :2559. / 2013 Sudip Gupta & anr versus Shri Khedapati Hanuman Mandir Trust & others 20.02.2013. Shri K.S.Wadhwa for the petitioneRs.Challenging an order passed by the learned District Judge, Bhopal rejecting a prayer made by the petitioner seeking leave for instituting a suit under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this writ petition has been filed. Shri Kheadapti Hanuman Mandir Trust, New Market, TT Nagar, Bhopal is a Trust registered under the MP Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter known as the Act of 1951).A Temple, known as Kheadapti Hanuman Mandir, is functioning under the control of the said Trust. The bye-laws of the Trust have been filed as Annexure P/1 and the bye-laws contemplate a provision for filling up various vacancies that may be created in the Trust. According to the petitioneRs.during the functioning of the Trust as various vacancies arose with regard to certain Trustees, a meeting of the Trust was held on 12.10.2011, and...
Kuwar Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1405/1998 Kuwar Singh and two others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ................................................................................................. Shri Masood Ali, counsel for the applicants. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 20th day of February, 2013) The applicants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C by the learned JMFC Rehli, District Sagar vide judgment dated 2.9.1998 in Criminal Case No.41 of 1998 and each was sentenced with two years rigorous imprisonment for each offences. It was also directed that sentence shall run concurrently. In Criminal Appeal No.191 of 1998 the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions J...
Rashid Ansari Vs. Smt. Surekha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR CIVIL REVISION No.194 of 2012 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Applicant : Rashid Ansari S/o Abdul Aleem Ansari Azad Ward, Betul, Tahsil & District Betul (M.P.) Versus Respondent : Smt. Surekha Wd/o Late Shri Prabhakar Pinjarkar R/o Ganesh Ward, Betul Tahsil & District Betul (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant by - Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate Respondent by - Shri Rahul Rawat, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (20/02/2013) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by learned Rent Controlling Authority, Betul in Case No.1-A/90(7)/ 2011-2012 whereby the application of plaintiff-respondent filed under Section 23-A for eviction has been allowed and eviction decree has been passed against the present applicant, this revision under Section 23-E of the Madhya Pradesh Accommoda...
Rakesh Kumar Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
W.P.No.3201/2011 (R.K Gautam versus State of MP and otheRs.20.02.2013 Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the State. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner interalia seeks quashment of order dated 13.08.2010 by which the representation of the petitioner for appointment on the post of lecturer in building construction has been rejected. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to award him 35 marks as directed by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Richhariya (W.A.No.1880/07).The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by order dated 07.11.2012 passed by a bench of this court in W.P.No.18828/12. On the other hand, the learned panel lawyer submits that if the petitioner submits a representation, the same shall be considered in the light of the order passed on 7.11.2012 by a bench of this court. In view of th...
M/S Bhatia Distributors, 3111 Vs. Bosch Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 C.R.No.37/13 20.02.2013 Shri Devesh Khatri, learned counsel for the applicant. He is heard on the question of admission. By the impugned order dated 29.11.2012, the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of the defendant. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no valid resolution to file the suit on behalf of the company has been filed and in that regard he has placed reliance upon Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. It has also been put forth by learned counsel that the power of attorney has not been authorized to file a suit on behalf of the company and therefore, the application which was filed by the defendant to dismiss the suit has been wrongly rejected. The learned trial Court considered the submissions and rejected the application and fixed the case for recording plaintiff's evidence. According to me, if the point which are raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.are already pleaded in written stat...
Smt.Satiya Bai and ors. Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Smt. Satiya Bai & Others Vs,. State of M.P.& OtheRs.Writ Petition No.3168 20. 2.2013: Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri A.K.Chourasiya, learned Government Advocate for the State. This petition was filed on 7.5.2005. Notices were issued immediately thereafter and matter is pending for more than 8 yeaRs.inspite of repeated opportunities no return have been filed. When the case was taken up on 10.2.2012 it was found that return has not been filed and as the matter of last indulgence three weeks time was granted to file the return, more than a year since last date i.e.10.2.2012 has passed and till date return is not filed. This Court had already passed an order closing the right to file reply and it is clearly indicated on the last date that the matter shall be heard without granting any further time. Keeping in view the aforesaid I am proceeding with hearing of the matter. Petitioner No.1 Smt. Satiya Bai is wife of Late Khiladi Yadav and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are th...
Dullaram Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
WP 1174.07(s) Writ Petition No.1174 of 2007(s) (Dullaram Ahirwar v. State of M.P.and two otheRs.20-02-2013 Shri Atul Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Heard. Aggrieved of his non-promotion as Head Constable in Motor Transport Department, Madhya Pradesh Police, petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to said effect. Initially appointed as Constable in the District Executive Force, M.P.Police, the petitioner in furtherance to circular issued in 1992 and after having successfully undergone training for Constable (Driver) petitioner was relieved to join the post of Constable (Driver) on 02-07-1993 and though brought in the cadre of Constable (Driver).his name was not included in the gradation list of the said cadre. There were others like petitioner whose services were not taken as Constable (Driver) which led to respondent to issue an order on 07-12-2004 stipulating therein to absorb such Constable...
K.B. Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
CRR No.5/2013 Criminal Revision No.5/2013 20.2.2013 Shri A.K.Pathak, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 31.8.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Anuppur in special case No.41/2011, whereby the charges of offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as the 'Special Act') alongwith other charges were framed against the applicant. For consideration of the present revision, the prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 3.2.2011, the victim Tullu was cutting a tree, which was in the land of the applicant and therefore, the applicant prohibited him to cut the tree. Thereafter, the applicant scuffled with the complainant and snatched his small axe. Thereafter, he assaulted the victim Tu...
Ramakant Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
W.A.No.1026/2008 20.02.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri T.K.Khadka, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, leaned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The following order is passed by consent of learned counsel for the parties. The Mandi Board has sought the opinion of the State Government vide letter dated 12.06.2012, signed by Shri Ajatshatru Shrivastava, Commissioner-cum-Managing Director of the Mandi Board. The State Government shall take a decision thereon without prejudice to rights of the parties in the pending Writ Appeals, within a period of 45 days from today and pass a reasoned order. The matter be posted on 8th of April, 2013. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge b...
- ‹ Prev
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Next ›
- Last »