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.
Virendra Singh @ Babloo Raja Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2674/13 3.4.2013. Shri Chandrapal Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Satyapal Singh Chadar, PL for State. Shri Sanjay Singh, Advocate for objector. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.has been filed in order to invoke the extra ordinary power to quash the order passed by Judl. Magistrate Ist Class, Ajaygarh, District- Panna on 21.11.12(Annexure A/3) confirmed in Criminal Revision No.119/12 (Annexure A/4) on 20.02.13 by learned Sessions Judge, Panna by which the request of petitioner/accused to call for the call details of alleged mobile numbers 9893992425 and 9755168243 of prosecutrix has been rejected. According to accused/ petitioner, from above numbers prosecutrix used to make calls on the mobile of accused/petitioner bearing Nos.9981812172 and 846304344, and it is necessary to show the intimacy of prosecutrix with the petitioner. 2 Perused the orders of both the courts below. The committal Court vide Annex...
Khalil Ahmad Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
Writ Petition No ::4361. / 2013 Khalil Ahmed versus Smt. Sushila Devi 03.04.2013. Shri U.K.Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Shri Suyash Tripathi for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order-dated 21.12.2012 passed by the 11th Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.12-A/2005, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for summoning of a witness alongwith original documents from the office of Nazul Officer, Bhopal, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is defendant and is facing a suit for eviction and recovery of rent filed by the respondent plaintiff. In the said suit petitioner filed an application for summoning certain revenue records from the Nazul Office. The said application has been rejected by the Court mainly on the ground that petitioner can always produce certified copy of the revenue records and for the purpose of these revenue records appearance of the witness from the office of the Nazul O...
Laxmi Prasad Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3920/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.93/2012 registered at P.S.Jawa, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. General allegations have been made against the applicant in regard to the demand of dowry. Charge sheet has been filed. Nothing is required to be seized from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is living separately. His ration card has been filed in this regard. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will ...
Narayan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1842/2013 3.4.2013 Shri R.P.S.Thakur, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Kumar Singh, GA, for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.153/2012 registered at Police Station Patera, District Damoh for offence punishable under Sections 302/149, 302/149, 147, 147, 148 and 148 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. As per prosecution, nothing is alleged against the present applicant in regard to committing the murder of deceased Todal Singh and Vishram Singh. The only allegation against the applicant is that he was wondering here and there when the witness Suraj Singh and the deceased were in the market (place of the incident).Nothing is required to be seized from the possession of the applicant. The possibility of his false implication cannot be ...
Shri Paswarshnath Digambar JaIn Mandir Trust Shahdol Vs. Smt. Meera Ba ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
Second Appeal No. 103 Of 2010 3.4.2013 Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants. Record of the Courts below received. Heard on the question of admission. Perused the record. This is plaintiffs' appeal directed against the judgment/ decree dated 23.10.2009 passed by FiRs. Additional District Judge, Shahdol in an appeal; whereby, suit for eviction preferred by appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed on the ground that the same is not proved to be filed by the trustees as required under Order 31 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Civil Suit 47 A/2008, for eviction, at the instance of appellant/plaintiff Shri Parasnath Digambar Jain Mandir Trust, Shahdol through its trustees was decreed on 31.10.2008 on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises. Defendant/tenant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court reversed the judgment/decree by trial Court and dismissed the suit on the ground th...
Mukesh Kumar Bairagi Vs. Secretary, Board of Secondary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1.... W.P. No.4793 of 2013 Mukesh Kumar Bairagi Secretary, Board of Secondary Edu. 03.04.2013 Shri D.K. Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, Counsel for respondents No.1 and 3. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Counsel for respondent No.4. With the consent of parties, this petition is heard finally. Petitioner has sought following reliefs :- 1. To call for entire relevant record.2. To direct the respondent No.1 & 2 to supply the mark-sheet of D.Ed. Examination 1997 to petitioner within a short period of 7 days.3. To direct the respondent No.3 to give some reasonable time for submitting the mark sheet to petitioner.4. To pass such any other order as deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.5. Any other relief together cost of the petition which this Hon. Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had appeared in D.Ed. Examination conducted b...
Karanlal Banote Vs. Charanlal Eshne
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR MISC. APPEAL NO.2804/11. Karan Lal Versus. Charan Lal For the appellant : Shri Sanjay Sarvate, Advocate. For the respondent : None ORDER (Oral) (Passed on 03.04.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The appellant/ registered owner of the offending tractor and trolley has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act being aggrieved by the award dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balaghat in Motor Claim Case No.86/2009 whereby allowing the claim of respondent No.1 to 3 with respect of the vehicular death of Bhuvan Lal, aged about twenty years the son of respondent No.1 and 2 while brother of respondent No.3 by exonerating the Insurance Company respondent No.5 has been awarded against the appellant for the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- along with the interest @ 6 % p. a. from the date of filing the claim petition.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that Bhuvan Lal son of respondent No.1 and 2 while brothe...
Bansroop Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 W.P.No.9901/2008 Bansroop versus State of M.P & ORS.03.04.2013 Shri Imtiyaz Hussain and Shri B.K.Bais learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anand Nayak learned counsel for respondent no.4. Shri Rajesh Dubey learned counsel for respondent no.6. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner challenging orders dated 1.2.2005, 29.9.1998 and 25.4.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Sidhi alleging that the respondents have permitted exchange of government land in favour of the private respondents, totally overlooking the fact that the land in question was reserved for public use within the limit of Municipal Corporation Singrouli. The respondent nos.5 & 6 have filed a reply and raised a preliminary objection regarding suppression of facts by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner had filed another petition which was registered as W.P No.4749/2009 (PIL) in respect of the same issue regardi...
Ravindra Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C. No.1414/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA, for the respondent/State. None for the respondent no.2, though served. Heard. The applicant has filed this application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur vide order dated 8.1.2013 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Additional Sessions Judge has committed illegality in allowing the application of anticipatory bail of respondent no.2. It is further submitted that it was a strong case against the respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Learned counsel also submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the facts presented before him and granted the anticipatory bail to respondent no.2 by ignoring the facts on record. Learned counsel for the State has no objection in regard to the cancellation of anticipat...
Vishnu Bajpai Vs. the Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
W.P.No.10158/2012 (Vishnu Bajpai ..v...Union of India & otheRs.03-04-2013 None for the petitioner. Shri Vikrant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/Union of India. The petitioner has filed this public interest litigation praying for quashing the notification dated 22-9-2011 issued under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) for the purposes of acquiring the lands mentioned in the schedule appended to the notification for broadening National Highway No.7 and converting it into a four lane highway between KMs.350.000 and 385.600 in the Rewa-Katni-Jabalpur section and for a further direction to the respondents not to construct the highway within the area of Katni Development Authority but to do so outside the limits of Katni by constructing a by-pass. The petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the respondent/authorities should have in fact constructed a by-pass thereby avoiding the entire city of Katni but the authorities...