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. Snehlata Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
W.P.No.3390/2013 12/04/2013 Shri Brijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4. Shri Mukesh Khampariya, Station House Officer, Police Station Damoh is present with the corpus and Respondent No.5. In the fiRs.hours when the case was taken up, as the police authorities were not present along with the corpus, the case was directed to be listed on 26.4.2013, however, Shri Vivek Agrawal made a request and informed this Court that the Station House Officer is present with the corpus and at his request, the matter is taken up at 2:40 pm. The corpus present in the Court indicates that she is more than 19 years of age, she has solemnized the marriage on 2.2.2013 and is staying with her husband i.e.Respondent No.5 and she denies the allegation of illegal detention made in this petition. Records do indicate that the corpus is a major. Taking note of the aforesaid statement, no further indulgence into the matter is called fo...
Ajay Sharma Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2690/13. 12.04.2013. Shri Nitin Pendharkar, Advocate for petitioner. Heard on admission. Issue notice to respondents 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. Also heard on IA No.26780/12, an application for grant of stay. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that trial Court, without considering the entire record of the case, passed impugned order dated 10.10.12. Counsel submits that trial Court failed to see that so called notice of demand could not be exhibited and the same is not admissible in evidence as the same is not original/true copy of its original and even the same does not bear the signature of any person. Counsel submits that compliance of mandatory provision of notice is not there. He submits that Complaint Case No.773/11 is pending consideration before JMFC, Jabalpur, and if the proceedings are allowed to be continued, then thi...
Dhani Ram Lodhi Vs. Smt. Lata Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Cr.R.No.1646/2012 10.4.2013 Shri Anubhav Jain, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in MJ.No.251/2010 whereby total interim maintenance of Rs.7000/- was granted to the respondents. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the case of interim maintenance all the objections raised by the applicant were not required to be decided at this stage by the trial Court. Only the quantum of the maintenance could be challenged in the interim order. Prima facie, it appears that the respondent no.1 is wife of the applicant and two children were born due to the marriage of the applicant and respondent no.1. They are studying in various schools and therefore, maintenance computed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court appears to be appropriate. So far as the inco...
Jai Prakash Dwivedi Vs. Shri Alok Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 Conc. No.1506/2012 12/4/2013: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumresh Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents. Inter alia contending that an order passed by this Court on 2.12.2011 in W.P.No.19944/2011 has not been complied with, this application has been filed seeking initiation of contempt action against the respondents. The writ petition was disposed of on the very fiRs.date without notice to the respondents and without granting them an opportunity to file the reply. Petitioner was initially appointed as Time Keeper in Work Charged Establishment and thereafter he was made daily wages Sub Engineer. Claiming regularization on the ground that some of the juniors have been regularized, the writ petition was filed. As already indicated herein above, without notice to the respondents and without granting them any opportunity to submit objection, the writ petition was disposed of on the very fiRs.date directing the respondents to consider the case of the pet...
Jabalpur Entertainment Complexes Private L.T Vs. the State of Madhya P ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1...W.P.No.6656 o12. 04.2013 Shri Anoop Nair, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Addl. A.G.for the respondents. Notice on behalf of respondents is accepted by Shri Pandey. Shri Pandey prays for three weeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the assessment order has been wrongly framed against the petitioner. A demand as per Annexure P-1 for Rs.27.36 lakhs has been raised, out of which petitioner had already deposited 6.5 lakhs and as per the petitioner, the amount payable is Rs.9.36 lakhs, to which petitioner is ready to make its payment. It is submitted that till the next date of hearing, respondents may be restrained to take any coercive action for enforcing the recovery as raised by annexure P-1 dated 23.1.2012. Shri Pandey prays for a short time to file reply on the prayer of ad interim writ. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for consideration of this prayer on 6.5.2013. Till next date of hearing respondents ...
Central Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd Dehri-1 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...
Kailash Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4344/13. 12.04.2013. Shri Sharad Verma, 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.7867/13, an application for staying the proceedings of Criminal Case No.6574/12, registered by PS Mahila Thana, District-Sagar vide Crime No.23/12, pending before JMFC,Sagar (Presided over by Shri Deepak Sharma).Learned counsel for petitioners submits that proceedings under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act were filed for divorce on 30.07.12 before trial Court, Sagar for which regular CS No.107-A/12 was registered and proceedings were started. Respondent no.2 was called, she appeared in person and after about two months from her appearance, she filed FIR (Annexure A/4) before Mahil...
Narayan Das Vs. Madan Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 M.C.C.No.305/2013 Narayan Das Madan Kumar & other 12.4.2013 This application is filed for extension of time for the compliance of the order dated 5.5.2011 by which an application bearing MCC No.390/2010 for restoration of M.A.No.4420/2007 was allowed by an order which reads thus:- None for petitioner. This application has been filed for restoration of M.A.No.4420/2007, which was dismissed because of non-compliance of peremptory order. For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, a case is made out for restoration of the case and accordingly this application is allowed on following terms:- 1. Petitioner to deposit Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) in the High Court Legal Services Authority for the aid of the poor within a period of thirty days from today and to file receipt in the office.2. Petitioner to comply with peremptory order within a period of thirty days from today.3. On compliance of aforesaid both the conditions, office to restore M.A.No.4420/200...
Smt. Shashi Yadav Vs. SachIn Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Criminal Revision No.525/2013 12.04.2013 Shri Arun Shukla, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Revision No.169/11, whereby the maintenance order passed by the learned J.M.F.C.Seoni in M.J.C.No.138/2010 on 25.11.2011 was set aside. Facts of the case, in short are that, the applicant was married with the respondent on 12.5.2009. On 29.9.2009 she was sent to the house of her mother. It is alleged that she was being tortured for dowry demand and therefore, her mother and brother were called at Lakhnadaun and thereafter, they took the applicant to Seoni for her treatment. When the respondent did not take the applicant back to his house, the applicant had moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.before the trial Court after giving a legal notice. Thereafter, the respondent had moved an application under Section 9 of the Hin...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Bhupendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
MCC No.352/2013 12.04.2013 Shri Shivraj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.3895/2013, an application for condonation of delay in filing the MCC. Looking to the facts as have been stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, I.A.stands allowed. Delay in filing the MCC for restoration of Civil Revison is condoned. Also heard on admission. This MCC has been filed for restoration of Civil Revision No.127/2012, which was dismissed on account of non-compliance of peremptory order. It is contended that learned counsel, who appeared for the applicant could not understood the order passed by this Court and because of this bonafide mistake, he could not comply with the peremptory order. It is thus contended that on account of fault on the part of the counsel, the litigant may not suffer and, therefore, the Civil Revision may be restored on its original number. Considering the aforesaid, MCC stands allowed. Civil Revision No.127/2012 be restored on its orig...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »