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.
Apurva Chouksey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
W.P.No.6425/2013 10/04/2013 Shri Narendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that certain encroachers have encroached the land belonging to the petitioner and orders have been passed by the competent authority for removal of the encroachment but still as no action is taken, this writ petition is filed. It is further stated that the representation filed in this regard is also not being considered and, therefore, necessary direction be issued. Keeping in view the aforesaid and considering the circumstances as are made out, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order before Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the said respondents shall take note of the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to the same in accordance with law within a period of three months' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Aazaad Khan Vs. Akhtar Gori Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
CRR No.96/2012 Criminal Revision No.96/2012 10.4.2013 Shri Riyaz Mohammad, counsel for the applicants. Shri B.P.Sharma, counsel for the respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, heard them finally. The applicants have challenged the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in criminal revision No.595/2010, whereby the order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the learned JMFC, Bhopal (Shri K.K.Shukla) in an unregistered complaint was set aside, by which the complaint was dismissed under section 203 of the Cr.P.C.The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the complainant/respondent had moved a complaint against the applicants that on 27.9.2007, at about 11.30 a.m., the applicants visited the house of the complainant and they wanted to collect some maintenance amount. A quarrel took place between Iqbal, father of the complainant and the applicants. Thereafter, when the complainant went to save his father, the applicants assa...
Tubbul Patel (D) Thr Lrs Naththu Patel Vs. Ram Pramoh (D) Thr Lts Lal ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Writ Petition No ::5466. / 2013 Tubbul Patel (dead) through LRs and others versus Ram Pramod (dead) through LRs and others 10.04.2013. Shri S.P.Mishra for the petitioneRs.Shri Manot Kushwaha for respondents 1(a) to 1(g).Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for respondents 2 and 3. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the fiRs.appellate court, in the matter of rejection of petitioners application for temporary injunction as contained in Annexures P/1 and P/2, petitioners have filed this writ petition. Petitioners are plaintiffs and the suit in question has been filed by them for declaration and injunction with regard to the property in question. It was the case of the petitioners that the respondents are making illegal construction, the petitioners are in possession and, therefore, claiming various benefits the suit has been filed. The application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from making construction was also filed. The courts be...
Golan Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.6251/2013 10/4/2013: Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Application of the petitioner for settlement of the land in question which is in possession of the petitioner for a long period of time is pending before the competent authority respondents No.1 and 2 and grievance of the petitioner is that no final decision in the matter is taken even though the same is pending for more than 30 yeaRs.Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to take note of the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on his application in accordance to law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Mahmood Ahmad Vs. Smt. Musarrat Jahan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Cr.R.No.322/2013 10.4.2013 Shri Sumit Kanojiya, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in MJ.No.116/2013 whereby maintenance of Rs.1500/- and Rs.1000/- was granted to the respondents respectively. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that he remained ex parte before the trial Court during the non-applicants evidence and therefore, no evidence has been adduced from the side of the applicant. Under such circumstances, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has decided the case on the face of the evidence adduced by the respondents. Looking to the evidence adduced by the respondents, it is apparent that the respondent no.1 has a sufficient reason not to stay with the applicant and also, expenditure is properly assessed by the trial Court. Similarly, it is informed by the witnesses of the respond...
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.5560/2013 10/4/2013: Shri Rameshwar P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt.Adv.for the respondent-State on advance notice. Challenging the assessment of electricity duty made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 this writ petition has been filed by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. Against an order of assessment passed under Section 126 a remedy of appeal under Section 127 is available and therefore, this petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the statutory remedy available is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the appellate remedy available, this petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Kesar Bai Vs. Dhanraj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
W.P.No.5526/13 10/04/13 Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, challenge is made to an order dated 13 th February, 2013 passed by the learned appellate Court exercising its original jurisdiction in a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and dismissing an application for temporary injunction. Against the order passed by the Court exercising original jurisdiction dismissing an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, petitioner has a remedy of filing a Miscellaneous appeal and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the remedy of appeal available is not maintainable. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy of the impugned order Annexure P-9 be returned back to the petitioner on his filing a photo-copy of the same. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Ram Babu Sharma Vs. Manager and Authorised Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
M.A No.4755 o10. 04.13 Shri Pramod Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2 although served. Heard on the question of admission. The appellant/ owner of the offending vehicle and the claimant, has filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short `the Act') being aggrieved by the award dated 19.8.2010 passed by the MACT (FTC) Begumganj, Raisen in claim case No.7/08 whereby his claim with respect of the damages of his vehicle Maruti van bearing registration not M.P.-04-HD/1017, in the alleged accident has been dismissed.2. Having heard the counsel at length, I have carefully gone through the record of the tribunal as well as the impugned award, it is undisputed fact that the impugned claim has been filed by the appellant/ owner with respect of the sum of damages of his alleged vehicle caused in the alleged accident which was the cause and consequence of rash and negligent driving of the ...
Jahar Pal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Cr.R.No.313/2013 10.4.2013 Shri Gaurav Sharma, counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in ST No.5/2013 whereby the charges of offences punishable under section 307 or 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C was framed against the applicants. The facts of the case in short is that, on 30.5.2012 the applicants gathered around the victim Balram and the applicant Jahar Pal assaulted the victim Balram on his head by an iron pipe. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there were three accused persons and only one accused Jahar Pal has assaulted the victim by once and therefore, prima facie their intention cannot be presumed that they intended to kill the vi...
Ramhit Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
W.P.No.3130/2010 10.04.2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. It is submitted by Shri Pandey that the C.I.D.has proceeded in the matter and has recorded certain conclusions, however, he may be allowed 15 days' time to file compliance report, may be, by way of interim, on record. It is also submitted by him that an offence has been registered against Constable Rana Singh who had played mischief in the matter. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the directions were issued to the Superintendent of Police, Satna to produce the corpus of respondent No.4 Kamlesh @ Kammu Lodhi but he had failed to produce it and ultimately the C.I.D.had recorded conclusions against the aforesaid person. It is also submitted by him that the C.J.M., Satna has also submitted his report which is on record, so the compensation may be awarded to the petitioner. This aspect will b...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »