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.
NittIn Katari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
CRR No.466/2013 Criminal Revision No.466/2013 10.4.2013 Shri Rajesh Patel, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicants have challenged the impugned order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T.No.310/2012, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 333 read with section 149 of IPC were framed against the applicants alongwith other charges. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicants assaulted the victim Head Constable Shivraj Singh, who was a public servant at the time of the incident. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that no x-ray report has been filed before the trial Court to show that the injury caused to the victim Shivraj was grievous in nature. One CT scan report has been s...
Dinesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.293/2013 Dinesh Vs. State of M.P. .................................................................................................... Shri Aseem Dixit, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 10th day of April, 2013) The applicant is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 of I.P.C vide judgment dated 8.10.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banda, District Sagar in Criminal Case No.791/2012 and sentenced for two year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-. In Criminal Appeal No.491 of 2012 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar vide judgment dated 9.1.2013 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved...
Babulal Panika Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.6366/2013 10/4/2013: Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Claim of the petitioner is that after acquisition of the land benefit of rehabilitation policy is not being granted and the matter is kept pending. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner for grant of benefit of rehabilitation and decide it in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is exclusively for respondent No.2 to deal with the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Yayati Asseem Alias Dammu Vs. Shyamdas Chansoria
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.1126/2013 10/4/2013: Shri R.K.Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 19.12.2012 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.29-A/2008. Petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit in question which is filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1. The suit has been filed seeking relief of declaration, partition and recovery of rent and possession of one-third share of the suit property with regard to the plaintiff. In the said suit an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC contending that particulars of the suit property, boundaries and other specification are not available and therefore, the same should be supplied. Another application was also filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC contending that for the purpose of demarcation of property, commission should be appointed. Learned Court below take note of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner and after evaluatin...
Pannalal Vs. Munnulal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.6343/2013 10/4/2013: Shri J.L.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 5.3.2013 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Raisen in Civil Suit No.4A/2011 by which an application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for taking certain documents on record and evidence has been rejected. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the application filed by plaintiff respondents has been taken on record but application of the petitioners has been rejected. A perusal of the order dated 5.3.2013 goes to show that petitioners are defendant in suit in question which is filed for declaration and injunction. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and wanted to bring on record registered sale deed. It was found that original of sale deed is already filed and therefore application of plaintiffs was allowed. As far as application filed by the petitioners are...
Mukesh Vs. Vaibhav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 M.A.No.5152/07. 10.4.2013 . Shri Sunil Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. The record of the Tribunal has already been received. Heard on the question of admission. The appellant/ claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the sum awarded by the 2nd Member Accident Claims Tribunal, Astha District Sehore, in MVC No.116/06, whereby his claim with respect of the injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident has been awarded against the respondent No.1 and 2 by saddling their joint and several liability for the sum of Rs.5,200/- along with the interest @ 6% p.a.from the date of the filing the claim petition. Having heard the counsel at length, I have carefully gone through the record of the Tribunal along with the impugned award. In the alleged accident after sustaining the injuries the appellant was taken to the hospital where after medical examination his MLC report Ex. P.23 was prepared and on advise of the doctor some x-ray was also carried out and its report Ex.P...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Ravindra Kumar Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Writ Petition No ::12610. / 2011 New India Assurance Co.LTD.versus Ravindra Kumar Verma & others 10.04.2013. Shri Rakesh Jain for the petitioner. Shri L.G.S.Baghel for the respondent No.1. Challenging the order-dated 31.3.2011 Annexure P/1, passed by the 8th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as MACT).Bhopal in awarding interest of `1,90,580/-, on the amount of award, this writ petition has been filed. Matter pertains to execution of an award passed by the MACT. The award was passed by the MACT on 30.1.2001 and thereafter Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act was filed before this Court seeking enhancement of the award. The appeal was registered as M.A.No.765/2001 and the same was settled in the Lok Adalat held on 12.2.2009, and an award Annexure P/2 was passed. By the said settlement entered into Lok Adalat, the amount of compensation was enhanced and it was agreed to that the amount shall be deposited within three months, failing which...
Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1203/2009 Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. ................................................................................................. Shri Vijay Nayak, counsel for the applicant. Shri K. N. Fakruddin, counsel for the respondent. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 10th day of April, 2013) The applicant has preferred the revision against the order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the IInd Additional Judge to the Court of Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.549/2008 whereby the order dated 25.11.2008 passed by the JMFC, Bhopal (Shri P.C. Gupta) in Criminal Case No.7/2006 was set aside and the application of the respondent under sections 63, 65 of the Indian Evidence Act was accepted.2. The facts of the case in short are that, the co...
Kesar Bai Gautam Vs. Ganesh Prasad Gautam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Writ Petition No ::5483. / 2013 Kesar Bai Gautam and another versus Ganesh Prasad Gautam and others 10.04.2013. Shri M.P.Shukla for the petitioneRs.Challenging an interlocutory order-dated 12.9.2012 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class II, Katni in Civil Suit No.156-A/2000, petitioners have filed this writ petition. Petitioners are plaintiffs and have filed the suit in question for declaration and permanent injunction, with regard to the property in question. Petitioners filed a gift-deed, which was executed in the year 1955 and wanted the same to be brought on record, to be led in evidence. It was pointed out by the learned court below that the gift-deed is an unregistered document and under section 17 of the Registration Act, registration of a document is a mandatory requirement. Holding that an unregistered document is not admissible in evidence, the application has been rejected. Rejection of the application for taking a document on record for the reasons are as indicated hereinabov...
Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta Vs. Raghaw Chandra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Con.C.No.219/2010 10/04/2013 Smt. Meena Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Shri A.Awasthi, learned counsel for Respondent No.3. Vide order dated 23.1.2006, W.P.No.4158/1994 was disposed of directing the Municipal Council, Madhogarh District-Satna to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Moharrir in accordance with law. Inter-alia contending that the order has not been complied with, this application for contempt was filed after a period of more than 3 years and 34 days in the year 2010 and when the contempt application was filed, the officers responsible for implementing the order had changed, not only that the Municipal Council Madhogarh was abolished and it was merged in the Municipal Corporation at Satna. In view of the above, it seems that the petitioner wants not to amend the petition and, therefore, I.A.No.1033/2013 has been filed seeking impleadment of the new respondents. Considering ...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »