Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
M/S Ajay Kumar Rajesh Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
W.P.21147/2012.(O) 22.3.2013 Shri S. Gulatee, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Sarvate, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that he has been recently being engaged by respondent no.3 and he has to file Vakalatnama . He wants two weeks' time to file reply. Prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner hence time is granted. I.R.granted earlier to continue till next date of hearing. List this petition alongwith all connected matter for analogous hearing after two weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE Ag/...
Rajju Lal Jaiswal Vs. Gorelal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
1 C.R. No.130/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Civil Revision No.130/2005 APPELLANTS: Rajjulal Jaiswal, S/o Late Buddha Jaiswal,R/o Kotma, District Shahdol, M.P. Versus RESPONDENTS: Gorelal, S/o Late Bhandas Jaiswal, Jaisingh Nagar, District Shahdol, M.P. Shri M.K. Saraf, for the applicant. Shri Anil Dwivedi, for the respondent. ORDER (22.03.2013) 1. This revision application has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 18.11.2004 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the application filed on behalf of defendant to perform the DNA test of plaintiff, Hatiyarin Bai and Gendi Bai has been allowed.2. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present suit has been filed only in regard to declaration of paternity of the plaintiff-applicant that he is son of Buddha. This suit has been filed against Gorelal. 2 C.R. No.130/2005 According to defendant Gorelal (respondent herein) the plaintiff is the...
Smt. Kamleshwari Salame Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
1 W.P.No.4442o22. 3.2013 Shri Sushil Mishra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, G.A.for the respondents. Heard. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on the following reliefs:1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1, 3 and 4 to comply the order dated 02.02.2013 passed by respondent no.2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent to give the charge of Sarpanch to the petitioner inGram Panchayat Bhidi, Janpad Panchayat Paraswada District Balaghat.2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in this facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in favour of the petitioneRs.3. Cost of petition be awarded to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the order of termination from the post of Sarpanch has been quashed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur vide order dated 2.2.2013 vide Annexure P/1 in Case no.882/A-89/11-12 and representations Annexure...
Sadaram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Cr.A.No.2961 o22. 03.13 Shri A.D.Mishra, counsel for the appellants. Shri R.P.Tiwari, GA for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.3807/13, a repeat application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant not l as his earlier applications in this regard have been dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 17.1.12,20.4.12 and 27.7.12. This appellant has been convicted under section 304-II read with section 34 of the IPC with direction to undergo for RI 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/- , in default of payment of fine further six months SI. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, after perusing the record, taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the available circumstances specially considering the period suffered by the appellant in jail since the date of his arrest 19.4.09 till today i.e near about 4 yeaRs.also keeping in view his age more than 60 yeaRs.the senior citizen, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, su...
Golu @ Dileep Ladiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3302/2013 22.3.2013 Shri Bal Kishan Choudhary, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 3.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.71/2012 (S.T.No.292/2012) registered at P.S.Garha, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the previously the applicant was released on bail, however, during trial, the applicant remained absent before the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court issued warrant of arrest against him and in compliance of the warrant of arrest, he has been sent to the jail. The applicant will regularly appear before the trial Court and will also co-operate in trial. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed t...
Ghansiram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Mcr.C.No.11775 o22. 03.13 None for the applicants. Shri R.P.Tiwari, GA for the respondent/state Applicants/ accused have filed this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.07 passed by I ASJ.Waraseoni in Cr.R.No.173/06 and Cr.R.No.19/07 affirming the order dated 8.12.06 by JMFC Waraseoni in Criminal case No.1903/06 whereby the application of the applicants field under section 76 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with section 239 of the Cr.P.C was dismissed. Earlier, this case was listed for admission and consideration of the stay application on dated 20.10.11 but on taking up the matter for hearing on such date, no one was present to prosecute the same on which it was adjourned with a direction to list after four weeks . Pursuant to that it is listed today near about after 1 years and the same position is today that on taking up the matter, no one is present to prosecute this petition. It appears that the applicants a...
Sanjay Kumar Chanchalani Vs. Smt.Roshni Chanchalani Alias Maya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
Criminal Revision No.1142/2012 22.03.2013 Shri Gopal Jaiswal, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. Heard on IA No.13231/12, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicant has moved the present revision against the impugned order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal whereas the applicant was represented. The present revision is filed with a delay of at least 702 days. No reasonable ground is shown for condonation of delay. If a client engages some advocate, then still it is his duty to contact with the advocate to get the result of the case. Therefore the applicant cannot take the plea that he was not aware about the impugned order. Such type of pretext cannot be accepted as a legal ground for condonation of delay. No satisfactory ground is visible in the application. Therefore, the delay of 702 days cannot be condoned. Accordingly, IA not IA No.13231/12 is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the present revision is also di...
Mishri Bai Kath Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2233/2013 21.3.2013 Shri Anurag Sahu, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 5.10.2012 in connection with Crime No.344/2012 registered at P.S.Civil Line, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The offence is triable by the Magistrate. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without expres...
Devram Lilhare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2169/2013 21.3.2013 Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 5.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.13/2013 registered at P.S.Gramin Navegaon, District Balaghat for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 363, 376 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecutrix Anarda is more than 16 years of age. She went with the applicant with her free will. They travelled various places. She stayed with the applicant for more than one month but did not make any complaint to anyone, thereafter, after returning back to her parental home, she lodged false and concocted report against the applicant. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel f...
Lakhan Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
W.P. No. 21787 Of 2011 21.3.2013 Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The petition is for following direction: (i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to not remove the petitioners from their house, where they are living since long back and possessing the permanent lease granted by the state govt. in the year 1984, 1998 under the Madhya Pradesh Nagirya Kshetron Ke Bhumiheen Vyaktiyon ke Pattadhikaron ka Pradan Kiya Jana Adhiniyam, 1984 and 1998. (ii) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to No. to take any coercive action against the petitioners and their houses. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct to the authority of the Manav Adhikar Ayog and any other competent authority to inquire the matter regarding illegal act of the respondents they are m...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »