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.
Dadnu @ Pandit Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Cr.R.No.454/2013 29.04.2013 Shri Vivek Shukla, counsel for the applicant. Shri Pushpraj Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on question of admission. Petition seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Learned counsel for the State takes notice of this admission. Record of the Courts below has already been requisitioned. Also heard on IA No.5947/2013, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. The applicant has been convicted under Sections 457 and 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- and RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail. He has been falsely implicated. He further submits that during trial and after dismissal of the appeal, in all, the applicant has already suffered the jail sentence of about 3 months. Revision would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for suspension of jail sentence a...
Ravi Iyer Vs. Smt. Kiran Iyer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1 W.P.No.5509/2011 29/4/2013: Shri S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.A.Sobhani, learned counsel for respondent. Challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal granting interim maintenance to respondent wife to the extent of Rs.8000/- in a pending proceeding, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner and respondent were married to each other and a dispute with regard to the same is pending in the Family Court at Bhopal. Inter alia contending that the petitioner husband is a consultant and is earning more than Rs.32000/- an application was filed by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance. It was stated in the application that the husband is working as a Consultant in a reputed Medical concerned in Gwalior. After evaluating the material that came on record pending final adjudication of the matter, holding that under the given circumstances, petitioner husband would be earning atleast Rs.1500...
Chandralata Alias Radharani Vs. Public in General
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1 S.A.No.1168/2008 Chandralata @ Radharani & ORS.versus Public in General & ANo.29.04.2013 Shri Anand Singh learned counsel for the appellants. Shri K. Rohan learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Heard on the question of admission. The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2007 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.10-A/07 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.8.2006 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-II Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.17-A/05, whereby the suit filed by the appellants for declaring the appellants as wife and children of deceased Niranjan Prasad Dubey as well as a declaration that the appellant no.1 and Radharani Bai were one and the same and the legally married wife of Niranjan Prasad Dubey, has been dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the courts below have failed to take into consideration and appreciate the documents filed...
Jagdish Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
W.P.No.5839/13 29/04/13 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Against the order passed by the Collector under Section 247 of the M.P.L.R.C., petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 242, Second Appeal and Revision under Section 50 and, therefore, the petition directly before this Court by-passing a three tier remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available under the M.P.L.R.C., this petition is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Vy/-...
Harnarayan Vs. Shri Digambar JaIn Mandir Atishaya Kheshtar Khajuraho
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
W.P.No.7307/13 29/04/13 Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an inter locutory order dated 20th March, 2013 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Rajnagar, Distt. Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.81 A/2010 wherein at the stage of evidence, an application filed by the plaintiff respondent No.1 for recalling certain witness has been allowed. Even though, it is argued by learned counsel that at the stage of final hearing, the witness should not be recalled but a perusal of the order goes to show that the learned Court has found that as certain discrepancies are there for clarification, witnesses are required and finding the recall of witness to be necessary, the Court has allowed the application. Discretion exercised by the Court for recalling witnesses for further examination cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference at this inter locutory stage in a pr...
Gram Panchayat Rauhal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1 W.P.No.6818/2013 29/4/2013: Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner Gram Panchayat has filed this writ petition challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa in a revision filed before him. The impugned order is Annexure P/3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner it is seen that the petition is filed by the Gram Panchayat through its Up Sarpanch one Shri Rais Khan. However, there is no resolution of the Gram Panchayat taking a decision to file this writ petition and challenge the impugned order. That apart, the Gram Panchayat has not authorized the Up Sarpanch to file this writ petition. That being so, it is a case where petition is filed on behalf of juristic person through its Up Sarpanch without any resolution of the Gram Panchayat to file writ petition not is there any material to show that Up Sarpanch is authorized to file this writ petition. Tha...
ChamarIn Bai @ ChamrahIn Bai Vs. Girish Kumar @ Daddu Jhariya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
MA No.698.10 Misc. Appeal No.698 of 2010 (Chamarin Bai @ Chamrahin Bai versus Girish Kumar @ Daddu Jhariya and two otheRs.29/04/2013 Shri Manish Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. There is a delay of 76 days in filing this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I.A.No.1636/2010 is an application seeking condonation. Having regard to the reasons assigned therein and taking into consideration the fact that the appellant, a tribal, who jails from the tribal not aware of the procedural law, sufficient ground is made out for condonation of delay. Delay is accordingly condoned. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is finally heard. On 06-08-2004, the appellant while travelling from Gudli to Bichhiya in Jeep bearing Registration not MP-17-W-0500, fell down from the Jeep and sustained injuries. Alleging that the injuries has permanently disabled her, as she lost hearing capacity which was ...
Ramesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Criminal Revision No.282/2013 29/04/2013 Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, Advocate for the applicants. Heard on the question of admission. The revision petition appears to be arguable hence, admitted for final hearing. Shri Pushpraj Singh, PL accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State. Record of the court below be called for. Also heard on I.A.No.3852/13, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicants. Applicants have been convicted by the Appellate Court under sections 325/34, 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to RI for 2 year & fine of Rs.500/-, RI for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. They are in jail since 8/02/2013. The revision would take considerable time to dispose of finally, hence he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicants. Learned counsel for the State opposes the app...
Prashant Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
W.P.No.6761/13 29/04/13 Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Against the order passed by the Collector under Section 247 of the M.P.L.R.C., petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 242, Second Appeal and Revision under Section 50 and, therefore, the petition directly before this Court by-passing a three tier remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available under the M.P.L.R.C., this petition is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Vy/-...
Shankar Lal Kotwar Dead Th:lrs Hiralal Kotwar Vs. Commissioner Jabalpu ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Shankar Lal Kotwar (Deceased) thr. L.Rs.versus Commissioner & ORS.Writ Petition No.3761 29. 4.2013: Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Late Shankar Lal was working as a Kotwar in Panchayat Saikhedi, Tehsil Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. It was his case that certain service land was given to him in the year 1988-1989 and as the same was transferred to private respondent without consent of Shri Shankar Lal, a revenue case was filed before the Collector. The said case was dismissed and, therefore, challenging the same Shri Shankar Lal filed an appeal before the Commissioner. Due to non-appearance of Shankar Lal for a long period of time before the Commissioner, where the matter was pending, right from the year 1988-1989 the same was dismissed by the Commissioner on 9.4.2002. However, on a request made by Shri Shankar Lal the proceedings were restored on 18.11.2003. Thereafter again when Shankar Lal did not take steps for defending the matter and failed to appear for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »