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.
Angad Prasad Vishwakarma Vs. Shri R.S.Julaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Conc. 402/2012 30/4/2013: Shri D.K.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Keeping in view the order passed by respondents as contained in Annexure R/1 dated 1.6.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization for the reasons indicated therein, no further action is required to be taken. In case petitioner has any grievance with regard to the manner in which his claim has been considered, he may file fresh proceedings in accordance to law. Finding respondents to have taken action, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the application disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
Kodulal Brahman Vs. Rameshwar Prasad (D) Through Lr';s Sharda Prasad D ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Writ Petition No ::7443. / 2013 Kodulal Brahman versus Rameshwar Prasad (dead) and others 30.04.2013. Shri A.D.Mishra for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an interlocutory order-dated 20.2.2013 passed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, Satna, whereby an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been allowed, whereby an appeal filed under section 96 CPC is permitted to be converted into a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. Plaintiffs/respondents filed the suit in question. The suit was dismissed and, therefore, proceedings under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC were held. These proceedings were also dismissed and, therefore, a regular appeal under section 96 CPC was filed. On the ground that the appeal under section 96 CPC was not maintainable, an application for amendment was filed seeking permission of the Court to convert the regular appeal under section 96 into a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. This application has been a...
Sanjeev Kumar Pathak Vs. Somwati Pyasi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
C.R.No.49/2012 (S.K.Pathak versus Somwati Payasi) 30.04.2013 Shri Dinesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri T.K.Modh, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard. The applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 06.01.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.1/2011 by Third Civil Judge, Class-I, Satna whereby the application filed by the applicant/defendant under order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C.has been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the averment made by the respondents in the plaint itself, it is evident that the suit has been filed by the respondents for declaring the sale deed dated 05.10.2010 as not binding and in such circumstances, the plaintiff was required to value the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees on the basis of the valuation of the sale deed but the plaintiff has not done so. It is submitted that the applicant had filed an application under order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C.taking up the afore...
Abhishek Giri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2591/2013 30.4.2013 Shri P.C.Paliwal, counsel for the applicant. Shri Pushpraj Singh, PL for the respondent/State. Heard. This is second application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. FiRs.application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.2.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.954/2013. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.232/2012 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Dindori for offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 452, 435, 436, 427, 120 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is a reputed student. His actual age is just above 18 years and in the event of arrest, his career would be spoiled. He is ready to co-operate in the investigation, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State has objected the prayer for g...
Kisan Majdoor Sangarsh Sangathan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
W.P.No.4115/2009 30.4.2013 Shri Shashank Shekhar, counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A., for respondents. I.A.No.4118/2012 and I.A.No.4890/2013. It is submitted by Shri Tiwari, learned G.A., that five persons whose names are appearing in para 2 of the application have been paid adequate compensation, special package and allotted houses in the Dam colony, so the respondents may be allowed to demolish the houses of above five persons. It is further submitted that because of non-demolition of the houses, the project of respondents has come to a stand still. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that if the aforesaid five persons have been paid adequate compensation, special package and allotted houses, then the petitioners have no objection, if the respondents take possession of the aforesaid houses, after extending a reasonable period to them to vacate the houses. To this Shri Tiwari, learned G.A., has no objection. In view of afo...
Mohan Singh Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Writ Petition No ::7732. / 2013 Mohan Singh Lodhi versus State of MP and others 30.04.2013. Shri Brajesh Choubey for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Considering the fact that an application filed by the petitioner for grant of benefit due to natural calamity is pending before the Commissioner, Sagar Division as is evident from Annexure P/9, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, Commissioner, Sagar Division is directed to decide the application Annexure P/9 in accordance to law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Surendra Kumar Purwar Vs. Gopal Das Purwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Writ Petition No ::7382. / 2013 Surendra Kumar Purwar versus Gopal Das Purwar 30.04.2013. Shri Nitin Agrawal for the petitioner. Challenging the orders passed by the trial court rejecting an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, refusing to frame additional issues on the ground that the issues framed are sufficient to decide the dispute between the parties, this petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Discretion exercised by the Court for rejecting the application cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference in this petition under Article 227 is called for. Accordingly, finding no ground for interference, the petition is dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Sagar Prasutika Grih Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Writ Petition No ::7557. / 2013 Sagar Prasutika Grih and Another versus State of MP and others 30.04.2013. Shri Avinash Zargar for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Considering the fact that after conduct of the election in the society in question, the Registrar, Firms and Societies have been intimated vide Annexure P/37 under section 26 of the MP Societies Registration Act, in the matter of registration of the office bearers and as the Registrar has not taken any action even though the matter is pending before him since 1.9.2012, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 the Registrar, Firms and Societies; and, respondent No.3 Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Sagar, are directed to take note of the application submitted by the petitioners and decide the same in accordance to law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the...
Ramlakhan Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Writ Petition No ::7308. / 2013 Ramlakhan Kushwaha versus State of MP and another 30.04.2013. Shri K.K.Kushwaha for the petitioner. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court in the matter of rejection of the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court, it is seen that finding the petitioner to be an encroacher orders have been passed by the Revenue Court under section 248 of the MP Land Revenue Code and orders for evicting the petitioner from the premises in question have been issued by the Revenue Court. Taking note of the aforesaid and finding the petitioner to be an encroacher and the order passed by the Revenue Court, learned Court has found that no prima facie case is made out for grant of injunction and has...
Smt. Sakhi Budhrani Vs. Smt. Mani Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
W.P.No.7191/2013 30/4/2013: Shri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kapil Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record, it is seen that suit in question pertains to various portion of same property which has two floor. Court below has found that both the property are different and not the same, having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the order passed by the Court below, I see no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution as the property involved in the proceedings pertains to different floors of the same building . In view of this, petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »