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.
Nijanand Bramhachari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
W.P.No.1246/2012 12/04/2013 Smt. Neelam Goel, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondents. An application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.in a pending proceedings has been rejected and, therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioneRs.right to the property is available and placing reliance on two orders passed by the writ court in FiRs.Appeal No.69/2009 and certain other cases, wherein person similarly situated has been permitted to participate in the proceedings, this application is filed. Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel indicated that except for contending that the petitioners have a right to the property in question, nothing is indicated as to how and on what basis, petitioneRs.right to the property arises, no application is filed and in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., it is argued that no error is committed. Having heard learned ...
Arun Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
W.P.No.12410/2011 12/04/2013 Shri Mukesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Petitioners are aggrieved by certain directions issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Education Guarantee Scheme District-Chhatarpur in the matter of lodging an F.I.R against the petitioneRs.On the ground that the petitioners had taken advantage of the scheme by producing fraudulent documents, some enquiry was conducted and based on the material that came on record, direction is issued for lodging an F.I.R against the petitioneRs.so that proper investigation can be conducted. Inter-alia contending that nothing is found against the petitioners and no material has been produced, the F.I.R lodged is false and the direction given by Respondent No.3 for issuance of F.I.R.against the petitioners is unsustainable, this writ petition is filed. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 7 have filed the reply and it is seen that an F.I.R has been registered and the matter is under investigation. Th...
Brijlal Vs. Mahila Shanti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 W.P.No.2929/2013 12/4/2013: Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 1.11.2012 Annexure P/6 passed by the fiRs.Appellate Court wherein an application for stay of execution of judgment and decree has been rejected. Petitioner is defendant and a suit has been decreed against the petitioner. Against the decree granted an appeal has been filed by the petitioner which is pending before the FiRs.Appellate Court and in the said appeal as an application for stay of the execution of decree under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC has been rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition. On a perusal of the judgment and decree passed, it is clear that in judgment and decree possession of the petitioner is found to be established. That being so, this possession has to be protected during the pendency of appeal and therefore, it is directed that d...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Saiyad Irfan Hasan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
W.P.No.19449/2012 12/04/2013 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for the respondent. Challenging an interim order dated 27.9.2012 Annexure-P1 passed by the 4th Civil Judge, Class-II Khandwa in Civil Suit No.79-A/ 2012 refusing cross-examination of a witness, whose affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C has been filed, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is plaintiff in the suit in question and has filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction. Petitioner's claim is based on two registered sale-deed dated 29.12.1993 and 6.6.1994. Petitioner has filed the affidavit of his witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C and some of them are yet to be cross-examined, thereafter, petitioner filed an affidavit of one Shri Govindram and sought for permission to get this witness cross-examined. This application has been rejected by the learned court mainly on the ground that on various occasions, petitioner has not filed the ...
Jasan Das Vs. Babu Lal Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 MCC No.991/2007 Jasan Das Babu Lal Mishra 12.4.2013 This case has been listed on the letter dated 15.1.2013 received from the Civil Judge Class-II, Birsinghpur Pali, District Umaria for extension of time to decide Civil Suit No.3-A/2012 Babulal versus Jashandas which was directed to be decided within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order dated 3.8.2012 passed in this case. Considering the reasons stated in the letter, in the interest of justice, the trial Court is allowed further three months time from the date of communication of this order to decide Civil Suit No.3-A/2012. In this regard, the trial Court shall duly comply with order dated 3.8.2012 in MCC No.991/2007 by which the trial Court was directed to decide the civil suit on the basis of day to day hearing in the matter. This order be communicated by the Registry forthwith to the concerned Court. With the aforesaid direction, this PUD is finally disposed. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Acting Chief Justice C...
Manohar Chaubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1...M.C.C.No.868 o12. 04.2013 Shri S.K.Pathak, Counsel for the applicant. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Addl. A.G.for the respondents. This application is filed seeking restoration of review petition No.10/10 which was dismissed in default on 3.2.2012. This application is barred by limitation so applicant has filed another application I.A.8538/12 seeking condonation of delay in filing this restoration application. The application is supported by an affidavit of Shri Santosh Kumar Pathak, an Advocate of this Court and considering the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit, for which we do not find any reason to disbelieve, the delay in filing this restoration application is condoned. Heard on M.C.C.No.868 of 2012. For the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit, we find it appropriate to allow this application and accordingly this M.C.C.No.868 of 2012 is allowed. Office is directed to restore Review Petition No.10 of 2010 to its number and be place ...
Shailendra @ Pintu Chouhan Vs. Smt. Kalpana
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.42/2011 Shailendra alias Pintu Chouhan. Vs. Smt. Kalpana & another. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate with Shri G.S.Rajput, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Alok Vaghrecha, Advocate for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 12th day of April, 2013) The applicant has preferred the instant revision against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the learned JMFC Sagar (Shri Manish Lovanshi) in MJ.No.10/2008, whereby the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- was granted to the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.2. The brief facts relating to the present revision are that the respondents moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant that the respondent No.1 was married to the applicant and...
Mohd. Hamid Khan Vs. Mohd. Akbar (Deceased) Through Lrs.- Smt. Haseen ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :7219. OF 201.Mukesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. - V/s - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Hon'ble Shri Justice M.A.Siddiqui ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Sobha Menon, learned Sr. Advocate with Ku. Surbhi Ahirkar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on advance notice. ORDER (16/04/2013) As per Rajendra Menon, J :- Challenge in this writ petition is made to an interlocutory order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench, Jabalpur refusing interim relief to the petitioners in the matter of permitting the petitioners to participate in a departmental examination to be conducted for filling up of the posts of Junior Telecom Officers.2. Petitioners claim to be physically handicapped persons and it is averred in the writ petition that process for ...
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Writ Petition No ::1946. / 2013 Shriram General Insurance Co.LTD.versus Smt. Pushpa Bai and others 12.04.2013. Shri Rohit Jain for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Saxena for respondents 1, 2 and 3. Shri R.S.Rathore for respondents 4 and 5. At the very outset Shri R.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, states that he has no objection in filing the original driving license of the driver. Keeping in view the aforesaid, no further direction is required to be issued. The learned Court is directed to take on record the original driving license that may be provided by respondents 4 and 5, and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance to law. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Dr. Brijendra Nath Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
W.A.No.245/2013 12.04.2013 Shri Dileep Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. Considering the controveRs.involved in this case, we direct that this case be listed for hearing on 25.04.2013. On the next date of hearing, the State Government to clarify the position whether the appellant could have been posted in Satna District by Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa or he was delegated powers in this regard. A specific affidavit in his regard be filed by respondent No.1. A copy of the representation filed by the appellant for his transfer from Rewa to some other district be also placed on record, within a period of one week. A typed copy of this order be supplied to Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, for compliance. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (B.D.Rathi) Acting Chief Justice Judge psm...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »