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.
Kanti Vallabh Adhwaryu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
R.P.No.95/2012 3.4.2013 Shri Hemant Namdeo, counsel for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri Prashant Singh, counsel for respondent no.4. Shri Amit Garg, counsel for respondent no.5. Shri Garg again prays for time to file reply. Prayer is opposed by Shri Namdeo, on the ground that since December 2012, respondent no.5 is seeking time to file reply, but has delayed the proceedings and has not filed the reply. However, considering the peculiar facts of the case, one last opportunity is allowed to respondent no.5, but on payment of cost, which we quantify Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) payable by the respondent no.5 along with the reply. Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 is also directed to seek instructions in the matter from the concerned authority, whether there is any possibility of accommodating petitioner by promotion on the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector, Class-III, because the respondent no.5 was given compassionate app...
Akash Sharma Vs. Barkatullah University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1...W.P.No.4654 of 2013 Akash Sharma & ors Barkatullah University & ORS.03.04.2013 Shri Aditya Sanghi, Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Mahendra Pateria, Counsel for the respondent No.1. Petitioners have sought following reliefs:1. That, this Hon. Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 Barkatullah University to accept the examination forms of the petitioners and permit them to appear in the MBBS Second Professional Examination scheduled from 16.3.2013.2. That, this Hon. Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 Barkatullah University to declare the result of the petitioners of the MBBS Second Professional Examination along with the main batch students.3. Any other relief which this Hon. Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel at the out set submitted that the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by th...
Subhas Chandra Agarwal Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Agarwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
C.R. No.428/2011 03.04.2013 Shri Mahendra Kumar Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21.09.2011 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.07 of 2010 by XII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, whereby the order dated 20.07.2010, passed in MJ.No.17 of 2009 by IV Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur, has been reversed and an ex parte judgment and decree granted in favour of the applicant has been set aside.2. Facts not in dispute are that the applicant being landlord filed a suit for eviction of non-applicant/defendant in the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur. The non- applicant was proceeded ex parte in the said suit and ultimately the trial Court granted an ex parte judgment and decree on 18.10.2007. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was made by the non-applicant for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decr...
Rajesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Shashi Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.184/2011 Rajesh Sharma VERSUS Smt. Shashi Jain --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashok Lalwani, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 3rd day of April, 2013) The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.10.2010 passed by the learned SDM, Mandla in criminal case No.161 (B.121) 06-07, whereby the order dated 22.6.2006 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in criminal revision No.95/2003 was complied and the encroachment of the applicant was removed from the spot.2. The prosecutions case in short, is that, in the year 1981 the applicant's mother sold a piece of land having area 5,700 sq. feet to the respondent and the possession was also given. Thereafter, the mother of ...
Sunil Pauch Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.206/2013 Laxmi Narayan Yadav VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Revision No.271/2013 Sunil Pauch VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Names of counsel for the parties in Criminal Revision No.206/2013 Shri Ashish Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Names of counsel for the parties in Criminal Revision No.271/2013 Shri S.N.Gupta, counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 3rd day of April, 2013) These two revisions are connected with the common order dated 19.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bhopal in criminal appeal No.756/2012, therefore, both the revisions...
Omprakash Pawar Vs. Bhabhut Pawar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1072/2011 Om Prakash Pawar & another. Vs. Bhabhut Pawar. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.K.Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 3rd day of April, 2013) The applicants have challenged the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No.238/2010, whereby the maintenance granted to the applicant No.1 Om Prakash vide order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned JMFC Parasia District Chhindwara (Shri C.K.Barpethe) in MJ.No.106/2008 was set aside.2. The brief facts relating to the present revision are that the applicants have moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the marriage of the applicant No.2 Puniya Bai t...
Mazdoor Mukti Morcha (Hms) Vs. Orient Paper Mills, Amlai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 W.P.No.5927/2013 3/4/2013: Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in a pending conciliation proceeding with regard to grievance of employees working in the Orient Paper Mill conciliation proceedings have been held and all the registered Trade Union working in the establishment are being called, however, it is stated petitioner is denied only on the ground that registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. By bringing on record orders passed by the Industrial Court quashing the action for canceling the registration of the petitioner and contending that in the light of the orders passed in a proceeding held before the Industrial Court, Rewa, registration of the petitioner have been restored. Grievance not is that petitioner be permitted to participate in the process of conciliation. If that be so, petitioner should move an application before the Conciliation Officer indicating all these facts and the Conciliation Officer is dir...
Ku. Anita Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
W.P. No.3381/2013 03.04.2013 Shri K.L. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Tabrej Sheikh, Advocate for the respondent No.3. The prayer of the petitioner in this petition is for the declaration of the result for 2009-2010 of B.Ed. Examination. It is submitted by the parties that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.15025/2011 Smt. Vartika Tripathi vs. State of Mahdya Pradesh and others, by which a Division Bench of this Court, considering the similar controversy, decided the matter by an order dated 07.08.2012, which reads thus:- "By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against respondent no.3 Registrar, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, to declare her result of the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) examination for the academic session 2009-2010.2. The petitioner intending t...
Smt. Tulsa Uikey Vs. Radheshyam Julania
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
Con.C.No.1591/12 3/04/13 Shri Tabrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.In the writ petition on 24th February, 2012, the dispute on merit was not adverted to, instead by indicating that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, the order passed was to consider and decide the representation. Now, respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order Annexure R-1 dated 4/09/12 and petitioners have come out with a case that in the case of other similarly situated persons, benefit has been granted, similar benefit is denied to the petitioners and, therefore, contempt is committed. I am afraid that the said plea cannot be accepted. Once, the order passed in the writ petition was without going into the merits of the case and the direction was only to decide the representation of the petitioner and the representation having been decided, the validity or justification and the manner in which the representation has been decided cannot be a subject matter of a...
Ankur Dubey @ Nilesh Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3565/2013 3.4.2013 Shri B.J.Chourasia, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicants are in custody since 28.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.47/2013 registered at P.S.Bina, District Sagar for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 294, 506-B, 307 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Injured Bunty has already been discharged from the hospital. Co-accused Banti @ Idrees has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 2.4.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.3671/2013. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due considera...
- ‹ Prev
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next ›
- Last »