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.
Dipak Surajiya Vs. Smt. Mamta Surajiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
Criminal Revision No.1994/2012 03.04.2013 Shri S.K.Gangrade, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Manikant Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicant has challenged the order dated 12.9.2010 passed in MJ.No.10/2010 by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal whereby the application under Section 127(3) of Cr.P.C.filed by the respondent was accepted and her maintenance amount was enhanced from a sum of Rs.1500/- to a sum of Rs.4000/-. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the maintenance order was existing before filing of the application under Section 127(3) of Cr.P.C.It was established before the trial Court that the applicant was earning a sum of Rs.28,000/- per month by way of a salary, and therefore if maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month is granted to his wife, then it cann...
Smt. Chanda Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3251/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Shri Lalji Kushwaha, Advocate for the objector. 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 her arrest in connection with Crime No.26/2013 registered at P.S.Amanganj, District Panna for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34, 304-B of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a 65 years old lady, she has been falsely implicated in the case. She is mother-in-law of the deceased. There are omnibus allegations against the applicant in regard to demand of dowry. Main allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- has been made against co-accused Omprakash Khare (father-in-law) and Jitendra (Husband) of the deceased. Nothing is required to be seized from the possession of t...
Udai Raj Singh Bais Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 W.A.No.67/2013 Udai Raj Singh Bais versus State of M.P & ANo.03.04.2013 Shri A.P.Singh learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Dinesh Upadhyay learned counsel for the caveator. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.21422/2012 whereby the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging order dated 17.10.2012 by which the appellant was transferred from Gram Panchayat Saman to Gram Panchayat Chachai, District Shahdol, has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed in W.P No.21422/2012 dated 20.12.2012 deserves to be set aside as the learned Single Judge has not adverted to or properly addressed the issue raised by the appellant to the effect that the order is stigmatic and the appellant has been transferred by way of punishment without affording any opportunity of heari...
Kunwar Lal Badode Vs. Shri R.N. Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
-1- C.P.No.920/2012 3.4.2013 Shri J.Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order dated 7.9.2011 passed in W.P.No.14101/2011 present contempt petition has been filed seeking action against respondents. W.P.No.14101/2011 was decided in following terMs.In the considered opinion of this Court, since a law is laid down in the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) in respect of grant of second karmmonati and respective directions have been issued it is for the competent authority to dwell upon the same and pass a reasoned and cogent order. Let the same be done within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. On being noticed respondents have filed their response stating therein that in pursuance to direction in W.P.No.14101/2011 the case of the petitioner was considered for grant of II Kramonnati ; however, he was not found eligible and order to that effect was passed on 29.8.2012. -2- ...
Sitaram Vs. Ramlakhan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No 8070/2011 03.04.2013 Time 3.40 pm No one appears on behalf of the petitioner, inspite of second round. Heard. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for restoration of Criminal Revision No.573/2009, has been rejected vide order dated 15.11.2010 for want of non-appearance of the petitioner. The Criminal Revision No.573/2009 was filed against the order dated 24.1.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Laudi, District Chhatarpur, rejecting the Criminal complainant filed by the petitioner against the 37 accused persons for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 219, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 470, 471/34 of IPC. The prayer made by the petitioner in this petition for restoration of Criminal Revision No.573/09 is not acceptable, as there is no provision for restoration of Criminal case in the Cr.P.C.Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed. ( M.K.MUDGAL) JUDGE dixit/-...
Prakash Rathor Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 W.P.No.13653/2012 3/4/2013: Shri Abhishek Arjariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kourav, learned Additional Advocate General with Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. On 25.9.2012 this Court had directed the respondents to constitute the Tribunals and Special Courts as required under Section 70 and 74 of the Food Safety Act but till date nothing has been done. Shri Kourav prays for a week's time to seek instructions in the matter. It is seen that under the Food Safety Act action is taken and the Food item and vehicle used on certain occasion are seized and applications are filed for seeking release of the vehicle or the seized item on Supurtagi. The specified authority in various cases expressed their inability to release the vehicle on the ground that they do not have such a power under the statute and when the application is filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Magistrate concerned they are also not interfering as there is no Court...
Savita Desai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.C.C. No.383/13 3/04/13 Shri Sampoorn Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.15778/11 which has been dismissed due to non-compliance of the peremptory order passed by this Court. There being some delay in filing the application, I.A.No.3399/13 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Taking note of the averments made in the application and finding the same to be bonafide, both the applications are allowed.W.P. No.15778/11 be restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the appropriate Bench. Application stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
The Anjuman Islamiyan Trust Murwara Katni Vs. M.P. Wakf Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
W.A.No.241 / 2013 (The Anjuman Islamiyan Trust Murwara (Katni) ..Vs..M.P.Wakf Board, Bhopal & otheRs.03-04-2013 Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri D.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State/respondent. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by order dated 21-2-2013 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the alternative statutory efficacious remedy available to it. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant/society is a duly registered society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is managing the Anjuman Islamiyan Wakf at Katni including the educational institu...
J.S. Jaggi Vs. Sanand Singh Shrinet
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 Cr.R. No.174 of 2012 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.174/2012 J.S.Jaggi. -Vs- Sanand Singh Shrinet & another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2-State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 3rd day of April, 2013) By this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandla (Shri Mahendra Kumar Uike) in Criminal Case No.658/2002 whereby his application under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the respondent No.1 was held on 7.3.1990 by the applicant and his companions. No arrest was shown. He was kept in the custody for 11 days, bu...
Adwait Fouzdar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
W.A.No.243/2013 (Adwait Fouzdar and others versus State of MP and otheRs.03.04.2013 Shri Neeraj Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri K.N.Pethia, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Heard on the question of admission. The appellants have filed this appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeepth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the learned single judge in W.P.No.9475/12 vacating the stay granted in favour of the appellants and order dated 20.02.2013 rejecting I.A.No.595/2013 for review of the aforesaid order. The proviso to section 2 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam bars filing of an appeal against an interlocutory order. The impugned order in the present appeal being interlocutory in nature cannot be assailed by filing the writ appeal. The appeal filed by the appellants is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. (S.A.Bobde) (R.S.Jha) Chief Justice Judge msp...
- ‹ Prev
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- Next ›
- Last »