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.
Smt. Reeta Cruz Vs. Smt. Vandana Chhugani @ Anjana Chhugani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Writ Petition No ::2797. / 2013 Smt. Reeta Cruz versus Smt. Vandana Chhugani @ Anjana Chhugani & Anr 12.04.2013. Shri Nitin Pendharkar for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Kanojia for respondent No.1. Smt. Sharda Dubey, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondent No.2. Challenging an order-dated 15.2.2013, closing the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to cross-examine defendants witness one Shri Samson DSouza, who comes from Goa, this writ petition has been filed. Records indicate that defendant produced the witness Shri Samson DSouza, who comes from Goa, by filing his affidavit as required under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the case was listed for cross-examination of this witness on 14.2.2013. Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner indicated that the time left for cross-examination is not enough, he will require a days time and, therefore, sought for listing of the matter on the next day. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to the next day i.e. 15.2.2013, and it was indicated...
Rama Dhar Sen @ Dadan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4414/13. 12.04.2013. Shri O.P.Dwivedi, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri G.S.Thakur, PL for State/respondent no.1. Heard on admission. Issue notice to respondent no.2 to show cause against admission by both modes, i.e., by ordinary as well as RAD post. PF be paid within three clear working days. Notice is made returnable within four weeks. In the meanwhile case diary be also called. Also heard on IA No.7995/13, an application for staying the proceedings of Criminal Case No.352/13, registered by PS Mahila Thana, District-Rewa vide Crime No.6/13 pending before JMFC,Rewa. Petitioner no.1 is father-in-law and petitioner no.6 is the husband of respondent no.2 whereas other petitioners are other family members of husband/petitioner no.6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that proceedings under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act were filed for divorce on 12.09.12 before trial Court, Rewa for which HMA No.40-A/12 was registered and proceedings were started. Respondent no.2 was called...
Paras Nagrik Prathmik Sahkarita Maryadit Jatara Vs. the State of Madhy ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 W.P.No.3339/2012 12/4/2013: Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Challenging the order dated 29.8.2011 passed by the Collector, Tikamgarh in the matter of discontinuing supply of kerosene oil to the petitioner's society, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner's society is registered under the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act and is registered as a Semi Wholesale dealer and granted license in this capacity vide order dated 25.6.2003 and 24.6.2003. It is a case of the petitioner that the license to function as a semi wholesale dealer is in operation upto December 2013. It is stated that on 16.1.2009 the State Government took a policy decision by issuing a Circular in the matter of discontinuing the working of semi wholesale dealer. However, the circular was cancelled on 30th March, 2008 vide Annexure P/5 and it was provided that in places where the service is provided by the wholesale dealers there...
Central Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd Dehri-2 Teh. Kundum Jabalpur Vs. the State ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 W.P.No.17162/2012, W.P.17144/2012, W.P.No.17149/2012, & W.P.No.17152/2012 12/4/2013: Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 to 5. Challenge in all these writ petitions is made to provisional orders of assessment passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the final orders of assessment thereafter passed and the order passed by the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Jabalpur, rejecting the grievance of the petitioners mainly on the ground that petitioners have remedy of filing an appeal before competent statutory authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act and therefore, petitioners should approach the said statutory authority. Various reliefs are claimed by the petitioners and after hearing Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered view that for all the relief claimed by the petitio...
Smt. Rukmani Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Writ Petition No ::6605. / 2013 Smt. Rukmani Bai versus State of MP and others 12.04.2013. Shri M.K.Tripathi for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. Government Advocate, for State. Considering the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the M.P.Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam is pending before the Commissioner, Indore Division, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 Commissioner, Indore Division before whom the appeal is pending, is directed to decide the appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If decision on the appeal is not passed, atleast an order on the prayer for interim relief be passed within a period of 15 days. Meanwhile, in case, petitioner is required to appear in any criminal case, which is pending in the Court at Khandwa, petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate application before the Collector, seek permission to go to Khandwa on the dates when th...
Sarjan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.2513/2013 Sarjan Singh State of M.P.12.4.2013 Shri Prashant Chourasia, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G.for respondent. This is second application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Earlier application bearing M.Cr.C.No.2986/2010 was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.6.2010. After arguing the matter, learned counsel for petitioner seeks withdrawal of this application with liberty to surrender before the trial Court and to apply bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.Prayer is allowed. This application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Acting Chief Justice C....
Zila Panchayat Vs. Subhash
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
M.A No.1176 o12. 04.13 Shri P.N.Dubey, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.D.Mishra, counsel for respondent No.1./claimant. Counsel of respondent No.1 seeks for and is granted period of 15 days to file the reply of IA No.4241/13 an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the same is filed barred by 42 days and IA No.4240/13 an application for grant of stay against disbursement of the sum of the impugned award deposited on behalf of the appellant. Apart the above, on payment of PF along with requisites of the registered post within seven days, the show cause notice against admission of this appeal as well as IA No.4240/13, returnable in one month, be issued to the remaining respondents, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the bench. Let the record of the tribunal be also requisitioned within three weeks. As an interim measure, the tribunal is directed that the sum of the impugned award deposited on behalf of the ap...
Ratan Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Criminal Revision No.623/2013 12.04.2013 Shri Manish Kumar Soni, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State. Heard on admission. By this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 18.3.2013 passed in Special Case No.18/2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sidhi, whereby the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.by the applicant was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that a trial is going on against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After examination of the prosecutrix, the applicant produced a CD and its transcript before the trial Court to show that a talk of the prosecutrix took place with one Lalita Rani, sister of the applicant, and therefore for contradiction and confirmation of that talk the prosecutrix may also be recalled. The learned Special Judge after considering the ...
Arjun Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
M.Cr.C.No ::4039. / 2013 Arjun Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh 12.04.2013. Shri Ghanshyam Pandey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Keeping in view the ailment of the petitioner as is evident from the documents filed from Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, the interim bail granted to the petitioner by this Court on 21.1.2013, in M.Cr.C.No.12298/2012, is extended by a further period of two months on the same terms and conditions as are contained in the order dated 21.1.2013. With the aforesaid, the application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Jhanklal Vs. Wan Vibhag
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 Second Appeal No.1151/2007 Jhanaklal Van Vibhag & another 12.4.2013 Shri S.K.Tripathi, Counsel for appellant. Office has listed this appeal for consideration of I.A.No.3259/2009 seeking review of the order dated 2.3.2009 rejecting the application-I.A.No.8050/2007 under Order 41 rule 27 CPC. For ready reference, aforesaid order is reproduced which reads thus:- I.A.No.8050/2007 under Order 41 rule 27 C.P.C In the aforesaid application, appellant has stated that he is filing 5 documents alongwith an application. In para 2 of the application, it is stated that these documents relates to the title and possession of the plaintiff, which belongs to the month-December 2006 to February 2007, which are necessary for the just decision of the case. Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., provides that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, but in case the parties seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes t...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »