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.
Brindavan Vs. Pannalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Writ Petition No ::4673. / 2013 Brindavan and another versus Pannalal and others 08.04.2013. Shri R.S.Khare for the petitioneRs.Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to orders passed by the FiRs.Civil Judge Class II, Singrauli in Civil Suit No.58-A/98, by which application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been taken on record. Petitioners are defendants 1 to 5 in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff with regard to declaration and partition of the suit property. At the stage of final hearing, an application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for taking on record certain documents and this application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC having been allowed, petitioners are before this Court. It is argued by learned counsel for that in a earlier writ petition filed, certain directions have been issued for disposal of the suit at an earlier date and not by filing the application the matter ...
Atmaram Vs. Purushottam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1...M.C.C.No.460 of 2013 Atma Ram Purshottam and otheRs.08.04.2013 Ms.Preeti Khanna, Counsel for the applicant. This application is filed for restoration of M.C.C.No.2804 of 2006 which was dismissed because of peremptory order passed on 20.6.2007. It was submitted by Ms.Khanna that the counsel for the petitioner was not present on 20.6.2007 when the order was passed so the order could not be complied with, resulting dismissal of the case. It is submitted that the petitioner who is a senior citizen may be given justice by restoring the review petition. This application is barred by limitation, so the applicant has filed another application I.A.3952 of 2013 seeking condonation of delay in filing this M.C.C.Considering the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit and also to the fact that the M.C.C.No.2804 of 2006 was dismissed without notice to the other side, we find it appropriate to allow this application and condone the delay in filing this MCC. M.C.C.No.2804 of 20...
Smt.Mahasweta Rai Choudhari Vs. Anishkumar Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Cr.R.No.1030/2007 8.4.2013 None for the applicant. Shri Devesh Bhojne, counsel for the respondent. No Advocate is appearing for the applicant since last 4-5 yeaRs.It appears that the learned counsel for the applicant does not want to prosecute the present revision. Consequently the present revision application filed by the applicant Mahasweta Rai Choudhari against the impugned order dated 20.2.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No.116/2006 is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution. Interim stay if granted is hereby vacated. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court so that trial Court may proceed further with the complaint. (N.K.Gupta) Judge bina...
M/S Swaraj Construction and Supplier Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1 W.P.No.5893/2013 8/4/2013: Shri Kapil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner was granted a contract for construction of High School building along with sanitary fittings and electrification etc.Two contracts were awarded to the petitioner. One in Village Balwadi and Rangaon in District Khargone vide work order No.2091 dated 31.12.2011 and another in village Jamali in District Khargone vide work order No.209 dated 31.12.2011. That apart, three more work were granted to the petitioner in the year 2012 vide work orders dated 2.8.2012, 3.8.2012 and 8.8.2012, these pertain to construction of various school buildings in District Khargone. Particulars of the work given to the petitioner are contained in para 2 and 3 of the writ petition. Petitioner has executed the work and not on the ground that for the work executed petitioner has consumed certain mineral and on the ground that petitioner h...
Shadiq Qureshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
CRR No.2294/2012 Criminal Revision No.2294/2012 8.4.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T.No.273/2012, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC was framed against the applicant. The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 5.4.2012, at about 10.30 a.m.in the morning, due to a sudden quarrel, the applicant assaulted the deceased Bahadur Khan by a kick on his chest. After 35 minutes, the deceased Bahadur Khan expired. In the post-mortem report, it was found that the deceased died due to chronic heart disease and his heart was preserved and provided to the Investigation officer. It was sent to Gandhi Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal. The expert of that institute g...
Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1.... W.P. No.5595 of 2013 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra State of M.P. & others. 08.04.2013 Shri Aditya Sanghi, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, G.A. for the respondents. With the consent of the parties and looking to the short controversy involved in this case, we propose to dispose of this matter finally. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 1. This Hon. Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commandingthe respondents to refund the excess amount collected @ 1.1 lacs per annum instead of Rs.12,000/- from the petitioner as payment.seat fee.2. This Hon. Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus Mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the excess amount collected from the petitioner in excess of the fee fixed for free. seat with interest since the petitioner has taken a loan from the bank for making the payment of the fee.3. Rule 2.8 of PMT 200.Conduct of Examination and Admission Rules. for the MBBS Course for the batch of 2001- 0...
Pandit Anil Shastri Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
W.P.No.6153/13 8/04/13 Shri R.P.Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that even though, he is authorized and nominated by the competent authority namely the Registrar, Public Trust to perform pooja-path of the temple but respondents No.2 and 3 are restraining the petitioner and complaint made to the District Collector is not looked into. Taking note of the grievance of the petitioner, without entering into the controveRs.on merit, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with the relevant documents, respondent No.2 the Collector, Distt. Sagar shall look into the matter and issue necessary instructions in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Tarun Kuamr Mandal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 W.P.No.5417/2013 5/4/2013: Shri Raghvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week returnable in four weeks. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an interim order passed by respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure P/1 dated 11.2.2013. On the complaint of the petitioner submitted vide Annexure P/4 to the Collector concerned, the Collector initiated proceedings and vide order Annexure P/5 dated 27.9.2012 finding respondent No.5 to be indulging in illegal mining activities has canceled the mining lease granted to him. Appeal is pending before respondent No.2 and in the pending appeal an interim order is passed vide Annexure P/1 dated 11.2.2013 permitting respondent No.5 to carry out mining operation. However, while doing so the only reason given by respondent No.2 is that certain proceedings are pending before the Sub Divisional Officer and therefore, respondent No.5 can be permitted to carry out mining ...
Vandana Tiwari Vs. Pranay Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
CRR No.81/2013 Criminal Revision No.81/2013 5.4.2013 Shri Hakim Khan, counsel for the applicants. None for the respondent. Heard on admission. The applicants have challenged the order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in MJ.No.488/2010, whereby the applicant No.2 was granted a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, whereas, the maintenance application of the applicant No.1 was dismissed. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicants had moved an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.before the trial Court that the applicant No.1 was being harassed by the respondent. She was assaulted and ultimately, she was sent to her parents house in February, 2007, where she delivered a daughter in Vijiya Nursing Home. She was again taken by the respondent on 30.5.2008. She was again sent to her parents house. Again she was taken on 6.3.2009 and thereafter, she was beaten on 24.7.2010 by the respondent and therefore, on intima...
Virendra Lunkand Vs. Sanjay Chelwani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
M.CR.C No.9130/2012 5-04-2013 Shri B.P.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard in motion hearing. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.for quashing the order dated 18-4-11 passed in Cr.Case No.1071/11 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Court of JMFC, Rewa. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that a complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act has been filed by respondent Sanjay Chelwani against the petitioner on the ground that a cheque amounting to Rs.10 lacs was given by the petitioner to him which, having been submitted to the Bank for encashment, was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground of closure of Account A notice dated 15-03-11 (Annexure P-3) for demand of the amount of cheque was given by the complainant to the petitioner/accused. He replied by Annexure P-4 wherein the signature of the accused has not been denied. The defence of the petitioner/accused is that the aforesaid blank cheque was lost from his p...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »