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.
Sajju Khan Vs. Ram Milan Nishad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
W.P.No.5934/13 8/04/13 Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the inter-locutory order Annexure P-10 dated 6th February, 2013 passed in Execution Case No.9-A/08 petitioner the judgment decree holder has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is a decree holder and the decree has been put to execution for assessing the correct valuation of the suit property. As on date, petitioner filed an application seeking calling for a valuation report from the office of Sub Registrar with regard to the property. The learned Court has rejected the same mainly on the ground that not only the judgment is put in execution and for the purpose of judgment put to execution, it is not necessary to get the valuation report. It is held by the Court that the material available is sufficient to decide the matter and from the office of Distt. Registrar and the competent controller of stamps, requisite information has already been received with regard to payment of a stamp duty whic...
Smt. Savita GaThe Vs. Pramod Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Cr.R.No.1442/2012 8.4.2013 Shri A.K.Mishra, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. Heard on IA. No.15959/2012, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision. The revision is filed against the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which the case was remanded to the JMFC under Section 228 of Cr.P.C.Initially, a complaint was filed by the applicant and thereafter, it was registered and case was committed. Under such circumstances, it was expected from the applicant that she would have participated before the Special Court though the case was tried as a State case before the Special Judge. However, it would be proper to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and therefore, delay of one year and 45 days in filing the present revision is hereby condoned. IA. No.15959/2012 is hereby accepted. Heard on admission. The applicant has moved the present revision against the order date...
Balram Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Criminal Revision No.1034/2010 08.04.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicants have challenged the order dated 19.6.2010 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj District Raisen in ST No.131/2009 whereby the charge of offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC was framed against the applicants. The prosecution case, in short, is that the victim Mansharam took some tablets of celphos on 23.1.2009. He was taken to the hospital and thereafter he informed that he was residing with his family separately and his brothers and father were not residing with him. Some persons had assaulted him, and therefore he came to his own house and in a drunken condition he consumed celphos. After considering his statement, the police has registered the case against the ...
Anil Kumar Jatav Vs. Shivratan Sen
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.15340/12 8.4.2013. Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for petitioner. Shri G.S.Gaharwar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri S.Chile, GA for State. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for parties. This petition has been filed in order to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to direct the revisional court to amend the order dated 5.9.12 passed by ASJ.Umaria by which petitioners revision has been dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that he wants liberty to avail further remedy in future before the courts of law. As far as granting of liberty to avail further remedy before the courts of law is concerned, it can be availed if the legal remedy is available to the petitioner. It is not necessary to pass any orders in 2 this regard. As far as liabilities and rights of petitioner and respondents are concerned, whatever legal remedies are available to them, they may avail the same even in absence...
Varun Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1 W.P.No.5785/2013 8/4/2013: Shri K.S.Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted lease for running the business, but no time period was specified and not the impugned order has been issued for evicting the petitioner stating that the time period has expired. He has further submitted that in the similar circumstances lease was granted to Smt. Sunita Agrawal and against the same impugned action she has filed W.P.No.12966/2008 before this Court, in which notice has been issued and stay has been granted. Issue notice to the respondents on admission and interim relief on payment of P.F.within one week returnable in four weeks. Till the next date of hearing, the operation of the impugned order 3.11.2012 shall remain stayed. List for analogous hearing along with W.P.No.20213/2012. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Punjaram Godbole Vs. Rahul Jaiswal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.4252/13. 08.04.2013. Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate for petitioneRs.Shri S. Chile, GA for State/respondent no.4. Issue notice to respondent no.1 to 3 to show cause against admission by both modes,i.e.by ordinary as well as RAD post. Steps within three clear working days. Notice is made returnable within three weeks. Also heard on IA No.7691/13, an application for stay. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.were pending before SDM, Sounsar bearing Criminal Case No.69/11 in which a preliminary order was passed on 22.6.11. After that respondent no.1 and 2 filed civil suit in which injunction application of respondent no.1 and 2 was rejected as they were not found in possession. Counsel submits that learned SDM vide order dated 17.09.12 stayed the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.as civil suit has been brought and it is pending. Against this order respondent no.1 and 2 filed criminal revision no.179/12 before Sessions Judge, Chhindw...
Bhagwandeen Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
SA 729.08 Second Appeal No.729 of 2008 (Bhagwandeen Dwivedi and another versus State of Madhya Pradesh) 08-04-2013 Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned senior counsel with Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri S.P.Rai, learned counsel for the respondent. Record of courts below received. Heard on admission. Perused the records. Appeal at the instance of plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05-02-2008 in Civil Appeal No.33- A/2007; whereby, the judgment and decree dated 05-12-2002 passed by II Civil Judge Class I, Satna, dismissing the suit has been affirmed. Claiming to be the Bhumiswami in possession of 0.11 acre of KhaSr.No.331 old, 331/1/Ka New, total area 9.13 acre situated at Ward No.34 village and Mohalla Dhawari, tahsil Raghurajnagar, district Satna, on the basis of being allotted on 18-03-1950 by the then Pawaidar by Paat. and as per the permission granted on 10-01-1960 by Nyay Panchayat, Diloura, having constructed a house thereon plaintiff...
Sunil Kumar Vashnav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1 W.P.No.4676/2013 Sunil Kumar Vashnav & others State of M.P. & others 8.4.2013 Shri Shakti Kumar Soni, Counsel for the petitioners. Looking to the grievance raised in the petition, we requested Shri Tabrez Sheikh, standing counsel for respondent No.3 to accept notice. Shri Tabrez Sheikh accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.3. The dispute relates to declaration of the result of the petitioners for B.Ed examination for the academic year 2009-2010 in which the petitioners had appeared on 31.12.2010, but the result has not been declared by the respondents. It has been prayed by the petitioners that respondents may be directed to declare the result of the aforesaid examination. Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that so far as petitioners are concerned, they had appeared in the examination and their names are appearing at Sr. Nos.62,70,33,67 and 37 in the allotment list of the college. It is also submitted by the parties that the controversy inv...
Sarita Pawar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1 W.P.No.4175/2013 Sarita Pawar & others State of M.P.& others 8.4.2013 Shri Nitin Jain, Counsel for petitioneRs.In compliance of earlier order, petitioner No.8 Kushal Singh is present in Court. It is submitted by Shri Nitin Jain, Advocate that he did not knot petitioner Kushal Singh. However, this petition has been filed by him at the instance of Praveen Dharse, who is present in Court. It is stated by Praveen DhaRs.that he was earlier serving in the college of respondent No.4 in the yeaRs.2009, 2010 and 2011 and petitioner Kushal Singh was student of respondent No.4 college in the aforesaid yeaRs.It is submitted by him that he had received telephonic calls of Sarita Pawar and Abhay Narayan and the Vakalatnama which is filed in this case was brought to him by the aforesaid persons. Thereafter, he contacted the counsel and the petition was filed by the counsel. It is submitted by him that this Vakalatnama was not executed in his presence. From the perusal of the record, we find that in...
Shri Manohar Aglani Vs. Smt. Chhaya Trivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others 8.4.2013 Shri Prashant Singh, counsel for appellants. Shri Umesh Trivedi, counsel for respondent no.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 9.4.2012 in Contempt Case No.1064/2007, by which the learned Single Judge while deciding the matter issued directions to the effect that the appellants have committed disobeyance of the order and have wrongly furnished an undertaking before the High Court in Contempt Petition No.1064/2007, be recorded in the service book. This part of the order is under challenge in this appeal only, but for the ready reference we quote the entire order dated 9.4.2012, which reads thus :- 09.04.2012 Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Shri Vinot Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. This Contempt Petition was filed against the respondents for non- compliance of interim order dated 7.6.2007, passe...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »