Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Shailendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Writ Petition No ::6699. / 2013 Shailendra Singh and another versus State of MP and others 26.04.2013. Shri Aditya Ahiwasi for the petitioneRs.Challenging an interlocutory order-dated 3.1.2013 Annexure P/1, passed by the court below rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking extension of a temporary injunction granted, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioners are occupying certain land and area in New Ambedkar Nagar, Kolar Road, Bhopal. It is seen that petitioners have constructed their huts and are staying in the area, they are working as laboureRs.Petitioners only say that they are staying in the area for more than 30-35 years and apprehending their removal on the ground that they are illegal occupants, when action was proposed to be taken by the respondents, the suit in question was filed. In the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed, which was granted to the petitioners to the effect that th...
M/S Namita Stones Impex Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.2753/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Shreyash Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Amendment as prayed for vide I.A.No.5123/2013 is allowed. Amendment be incorporated within two days and, thereafter, notice be issued to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, keeping in view the circular issued by the Central Government as contained in Annexure-P5 dated 9.10.2001 issued by the Secretary, prima-facie, recovery of the dead rent from the petitioner seems to be unsustainable. In view of the above, the recovery ordered vide Annexure- P4 dated 19.7.2012 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
M/S Adishwar Marble Industries Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.2773/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Shreyash Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Amendment as prayed for vide I.A.No.5122/2013 is allowed. Amendment be incorporated within two days and, thereafter, notice be issued to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, keeping in view the circular issued by the Central Government as contained in Annexure-P6 dated 9.10.2001 issued by the Secretary, prima-facie, recovery of the dead rent from the petitioner seems to be unsustainable. In view of the above, the recovery ordered vide Annexure- P5 dated 19.7.2012 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
ilesh JaIn Vs. Rajju @ Rajendra Loya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
C.R.No.227/2011 (Ilesh Jain versus Rajju alias Rajendra Loya and another) 25.04.2013 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard. The applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 23.03.2011 (wrongly mentioned as 03.03.2011) passed in Civil Suit No.37-A/10 by Civil Judge Class-I, Pipariya by which the application filed by the applicant under order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C.has been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and has also claimed for declaring the sale deed dated 31.03.2010 as null and void but while doing so, he has wrongly valued the suit at Rs.45,000/- for declaration and has paid court fees accordingly whereas the value of the property shown in the sale deed itself indicates that the transaction was for a consideration of Rs.Seventeen lacs. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court below has wrongly rejected the applic...
Rama Prasanna Tiwari Vs. Shri S.P.S. Parihar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Rama Prasanna Tiwari versus Shri S.P.S. Parihar and otheRs.Con.C.No.2121/12 25/04/13 Shri P.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Keeping in view the order passed by the respondents as contained in Annexure R-1 considering and rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which his claim is considered and rejected, it gives a fresh cause to the petitioner to challenge the order but not a case for initiating action for contempt keeping in view the nature of order passed in the original writ petition. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the subsequent action afresh in accordance with law, this application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Yashwant Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Writ Petition No ::7272. / 2013 Yashwant Yadav and others versus State of MP and others 25.04.2013. Shri S.D.Mishra for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Shri Hemant Namdeo for respondent No.5. Considering the fact that the question is pending consideration before respondent No.2 Commissioner (Revenue) on an appeal filed, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere into the matter on merits. Interest of justice would be met in case respondent No.2 is directed to decide the appeal after hearing all concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the appeal is not decided by the Commissioner respondent No.2, petitioners civil imprisonment shall remain in abeyance. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Haji Ghulaam Mohmmed Arbi Vs. M.P. Waqf Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Haji Ghulaam Mohmmed Arbi versus M.P.Waqf Board & Others Writ Petition No.7038 25. 4.2013: Shri Mrigendra Singh with Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Salim Rehman, learned counsel for respondents. Challenging the order passed by the competent authority constituting Managing Committee of the Anjuman Islamiya Jama Masjid Lalbarra, this writ petition has been filed. It is stated that various illegality have been committed in the matter and order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board constituting a committee is unsustainable. Challenging the said constitution of committee, this writ petition has been filed. Shri Salim Rehman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents point out that against the aforesaid order passed a remedy of appeal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act is available to the petitioner and as a statutory remedy of appeal before a tribunal created under Section 83 is available, a writ petition directly before this Court is not main...
Smt. Renuka Doshi Vs. Smt. Rama Telang
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
1 W.P.No.3288/2013 25/4/2013: Shri Rajesh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shreyas Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging an order dated 7.8.2012 and an order dated 18.1.2013 Annexure P/7 rejecting an application for review filed by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is a plaintiff and has filed the suit in question. Suit was at the stage of evidence and petitioner had filed affidavits of the witnesses. The case was listed for cross examination of the witnesses of the petitioner on 22.12.2011, thereafter, on 22.2.2012 two of the witnesses namely Smt. Neelam and Smt. Manorama were produced for cross examination. They were cross examined on 22.12.2011 and 22.2.2012. Another witness Shri Susheel was to be cross examined and for the said purpose case was fixed on 7.8.2012. However, on the said date the witness Susheel was not present and finding that witness has not been produced inspite of giving opportunity and no justifiable cau...
Gend Lal and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
1 Cr.A. No.124/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.124/1997 APPELLANTS :1. Gendlal S/o. Mandra Pardhan, 2. Chironja, S/o. Ramdayal 3. Smt. Premabai W/o. Dumma Pardhan, 4. Samina Bi, W/o. Surmat Musalman, All R/o. Khursipaar, P.S. Kewlari, District Seoni (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellant by Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate. Respondent/State by Shri C.K. Mishra, Public Prosecutor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (25.04.2013) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.1996 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No.76/1992 convicting the appellants no.2 to 4 under Section 363 IPCand further convicting first appellant under sections 363, 366 a...
Arun Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Cr.A. No.2387/2010 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Criminal Appeal No.2387 of 2010 APPELLANT : Arun Kumar Shukla s/o Late Bhurelal Shukla, R/o Lalmati Gopal Hotel, Near Chhoti Santoshi Mata Temple, P.S. Ghamapur, Tehsil & District Jabalpur. -Versus- RESPONDENT : The State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Ghamapur, Jabalpur ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT { 25-04-2013 } Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2010 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.310/2007 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »