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.
Sri 108 Sri Swami Jagdish Mandir Trust Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
M.C.C.No.208/2013 20.2.2013 Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. This is an application for restoration of Writ Petition No.2307/1995 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 10.5.2006. The order dated 10.5.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.2307/1995 reads as under : None for the petitioner, despite Shri Parag Chaturvedi, Advocate, having been informed by the peon of this Court. Earlier also no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1,2,3,5 and 6. Shri Devesh Jain, for the respondent no.4. It seems that the petitioner is no more interested in prosecuting this petition. This petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. It is sad that despite the counsel for petitioner having been informed by the Peon of this Court he did not appear. This fact has not been denied in the present application for restoration which has been filed after more than 6 yeaRs.that too without showing any suf...
Lakhhu @ Lakhanlal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
1 AFR HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH Criminal Appeal No.1393/2002 Lakkhu @ Lakhanlal Gond, s/o Sarmanlal Gond, aged 19 years, r/o village Gubra (Kala), PS Jabera, district Damoh, M.P. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh through the Arakshi Kendra Jabera, District Damoh, M.P. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant: Smt. Durgesh Gupta, Advocate. For the State: Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing:31. 01/2013 Date of Judgment:19. 02/2013 JUDGMENT Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 26...
M/S Ajit Constructions Co. Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
1 Writ Petition No.8949/2010 18.02.2013 Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate, with Shri H.S.Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vipin Mishra, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Arbitration Forum provided under clause 24 of the Contract Agreement. In the meanwhile, parties have agreed to the following arrangement for a period of three months. i) respondents shall not encash the Bank Guarantee No.325601GL0004507, lying with them, for a period of three months from today. ii) The respondents shall be at liberty to adjust the money of the petitioner lying with them in the form of FDRs.cash and pending bills, and shall duly inform the petitioner of the amounts adjusted. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid arrangement for a period of three months from today. Certified copy as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Jus...
Atar Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.267 of 1999 Atar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ................................................................................................. Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 19th day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadarwara in Criminal Case No.354/95 and vide judgment dated 29.1.1998 he was sentenced for six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/-. In Criminal Appeal No.15 of 1998 the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara vide judgment dated 27.2.1998 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with both the judgments the applicant h...
Smt. Surekha Chadokar Vs. Shri Arun Kochar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Con.C.No.1696/12 19/02/13 Shri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed for initiating action against the respondents on the ground that the order dated 18/02/10 passed in W.P.2216/10 (s) has not been complied with. The order is passed on 18/02/10, more than three years have been passed and, therefore, the situation could be changed. There is no proof of service of copy of the order on the respondents. Taking note of all these factors and the delay of more than 3 years in approaching this Court, for the present, I am not inclined to initiate any action for contempt, instead, it is directed that in case, petitioner has any grievance still subsisting, he may submit an order along with a photo-copy of the order dated 18/02/10 passed in W.P.No.2216/10 and on the same being done, respondents shall consider and decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months thereof. With the aforesaid, application stands disposed of.C.C. as per ru...
Ramnath Gaindrao Lokhande Vs. V.N. Pateriya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
1 Conc. No.1219/2009 19.2.2013 Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondents. From the return filed by the respondents, it is seen that the claim of the petitioner for regularization was considered in the meeting of the District Selection Committee which was held on 12.8.2011 and recommendation has been submitted as is evident from Annexure R1/1. Claim of the petitioner is considered at Srl. No.3 and recommendation is to regularize the petitioner in a class IV post. Even though the recommendation is submitted more than a year back, no action is taken and consequential orders in pursuance to the recommendation made has not been issued. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without initiating any action for contempt, respondent the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika, Chhindwara who is holding the post has to be directed to take note of the recommendations made and pass consequential order with regard to regu...
Bhajanjeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corpn. Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
1 F.A..No.165/1996 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava First Appeal No.165/1996 APPELLANT: Bhajanjeet Singh aged about 55 years, S/o Late Sardar Shankar Singh, R/o E-4/194, 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 (19.02.2013) 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.71-A/1989, whereby the suit of plaintiff has been dismissed.2. In brief, the suit of plaintiff is that on 30.08.1983, he obtained permission to raise construction of his house and thereafter in accordance with the sanctioned map, he built 2 F.A..No.165/1996 his house in between 30.05.1983 to 24.04.1989. During the period of six years, when the co...
Kamlesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.848/2013 18/01/2013 Shri Vipin Yadav, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P.K.Chourasiya, PL for the respondent/State. Applicant has filed this petition for correction in the order dated 9/01/2013 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.13642/2012. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to the typing mistake, the age of applicant wrongly mentioned as 60 yeaRs.in fact, applicant is 30 years of young man. In these circumstances, he prays for correction in the said order. Learned counsel for the State has no objection Considering the aforesaid contention, application is allowed. The Committal Court/Trial Court is directed to read the age of applicant Kamlesh as 30 years in place of 60 years in the title of the order dated 9/01/2013 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.13642/2012. The petition stands disposed of. Certified copy today. (G.S.SOLANKI) Judge navin...
Satanand Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Criminal Revision No.801/2012 19.2.2013 Shri Brijesh Choubey, counsel for the applicants. Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. The present revision is filed by the applicants against the order dated 17.4.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur in criminal case No.19582/2008, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 509, 323, 506-II of IPC were framed against the applicants. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants prays to withdraw the present revision. Consequently, the present revision is hereby dismissed being withdrawn and interim stay order is also vacated. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra...
Anjana Bai Vs. Shyamrao
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Criminal Revision No.313/1999 19.02.2013 Shri D.S.Thakur, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent No.1. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2-State. Heard on admission. The respondent No.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC vide judgment dated 21.4.1993 passed by the JMFC Balaghat in Criminal Case No.256/1990 and sentenced for one year's RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In Criminal Appeal No.61/1994, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Balaghat vide judgment dated 16.11.1998 acquitted the respondent No.1 from the aforesaid charge. Being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal, present revision is preferred. For consideration of this revision, the prosecution story, in short, is that the marriage of the complainant Pramila took place with the respondent No.1 in May 1985. She remained with the respondent No.1 for 10 months and at that time the respondent No.1 was working at Balaghat and he visited the Village Bhorgarh only 5-10 days. He ...
- ‹ Prev
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- Next ›
- Last »