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.
Shakti Tomar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
W.P.NO.13521 o3. 4.2013. None for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi for respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the SLP is still pending before the Apex Court. By way of interim order issued in the SLP, the petitioner herein had appeared in the examination,but, there are no directions of the Apex Court for declaration of the result. As the matter in respect of institution (college) of the petitioner is still pending before the Apex Court as SLP (Civil) No.17497/2007 in which interim order was passed on 1.10.2009. By order dt.1.10.2009 the Apex Court has directed thus : Until further ordeRs.respondent University is directed to allow the students provisionally admitted in the petitioner-Institutions namely Kautilya Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal, Shri Vivekanand Shiksha Eavam Sewa Samiti, Bhopal and Deepti Prabha Shiksha Evam Jan Kalyan Samiti, Bhopal in 2005-06 session to sit in the examination commencing from today i.e.1st October, 2009. However, their result s...
Shivlal Kori Vs. Tilakdhari Kori
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
Writ Petition No ::13098. / 2012 Shivlal Kori and others versus Tilakdhari Kori and State of MP 03.04.2013. Shri S.P.Dubey for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for State/respondent No.2. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court in the matter of granting injunction to plaintiff/respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 plaintiff and the petitioners are brothers and it is stated that on the basis of consent of plaintiff, certain partition of the family property took place before the Tehsildar. However, thereafter plaintiff filed the suit in question seeking restoration of possession and declaration. In the said suit an application for temporary injunction was filed. Based on the evidence and material that came on record, the learned trial court found prima facie possession of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 established and finding him to be in possession, injunction wa...
Mohammad Azhar Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.CR.C.1847/2012 M.CR.C.1848/2012 3-04-2013 Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Pratibha Mishra, learned P.L.for the State. Heard the arguments in motion hearing. This order shall govern the disposal of above mentioned petitions since the impugned order in both the cases is same. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.against the order dated 22-11-11 passed by the court of ASJ Bhopal (Shri C.M.Garg) in Cr.Rev.No.379/11, upholding the order dated 15-06-11 passed in Cr.Case No.12054/06 by the court of JMFC, Bhopal (Ku. Monika Shakya).allowing the application dated 8-4-11 filed by the prosecution for taking the documents on record and summoning the witnesses Mazid Hussain and Smt. Nazma Begum as witnesses in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application was filed by the prosecution u/S 24.of the Cr.P.C.which could not have been allowed by the trial court because under the aforesaid provision, only those...
Lalchand Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2803/2013 3.4.2013 Shri A.K.Pathak, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the objector. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have already been enlarged on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 12.3.2013 and the applicants did not misuse the liberty granted to them. Learned Counsel for the State and the objector have opposed the application. Since applicants have already been enlarged on ad-interim anticipatory bail and there is no report that they misused the liberty granted to them, the order dated 12.3.2013 is hereby made absolute for a period of 60 days only. In the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules. (G.S.Solanki) Judge PB...
Chandraprakash Agrawal Vs. Nathuram Ji Lakhera
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
Writ Petition No ::4574. / 2013 Chandraprakash Agrawal versus Nathuram J.Lakhera and others 03.04.2013. Shri M. Aadil Usmani for the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that an application submitted by the petitioner for his cross- examination by appointing a Commission under Order 26 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected and, therefore, interference be made. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed the suit in question for eviction on the grounds contemplated under section 12(1)(f) of the MP Accommodation Control Act and arrears of rent. Petitioner is defendant in the suit in question and in the said suit petitioner has submitted his evidence by way of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, on the ground that he is more than 68 years of age, he has some cardiac problems for which he is undergoing treatment since October 2011. Further submitting that he is undergoing some treatment from the Neurosurgery Department of Bhopal Memorial Hospit...
Bhagwandas Vs. Ramsahai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 Second Appeal No. 2814 Of 2005 3.4.2013 Ku. Stuti Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 8 to 10. I.A. No. 13984/2011, an application under Order 22 Rule, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 2, who expired on 26.4.2011. It is contended on behalf of appellant that the knowledge of death of respondent No. 2 Kamal Kumar could be gathered through communication made by the Counsel vide application under Order 22 Rule 10 A, CPC on 27.6.2011. It is further contended that except the information there were no details regarding legal representatives of respondent No. 2 and the appellants only after gathering the information and the details of the legal representatives of respondent No. 2 contacted the lawyer in second week of N...
Bantu @ Omprakash Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1261/2013 3/04/2013 Shri Manish Awasthi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 11/1/13 in connection with Crime No.125/12 registered at P.S.Tendukhera, District Damoh for the offence punishable under sections 376, 341, 506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. As per prosecution itself it is alleged against this applicant that he was involved in sexual intercouRs.with prosecutrix since three months. It is further submitted it is a case of consent and due to some dispute, prosecutrix has lodged a false and concocted report against this applicant. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes...
Munnalal Kaurav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
Cr.R.No.412/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Pradeep Naveriya, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1/State. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur by which the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 203 of Cr.P.C was dismissed. The prosecution's case in short is that the deceased Hakam Singh was found hanging in the house of the respondent no.2 Virendra, situated in his field at Village Barheta, Police Station Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. An intimation was given to the Police. It was found that the deceased sustained so many injuries and his feet was touching to the ground. After investigation the Police filed a challan under section 306 of I.P.C against the respondents Rajneesh and Jagmohan. Thereafter, the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the respondents no.2 to 6 for offence punishable under sections 302 and 306 of I.P.C.The le...
Shriram Bharti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1415/2013 3/04/2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri N. Datt, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicants have been arrested on 2/08/12 in connection with Crime No.298/12 registered at P.S.Bijuri, District Anuppur for the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A/34 of IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant no.1 is father-in-law and applicant no.2 is mother-in-law of deceased Rama who said to have been committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. It is further submitted that initially nothing was stated against these applicants by parents of deceased thereafter, they made a concocted story in regard to demand of dowry and cruelty against them. Charge sheet has already been filed an...
Ramesh Sondhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
CRR No.439/2013 Criminal Revision No.439/2013 03.04.2013 Shri Prakash Gupta, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashypa, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. As prayed, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.178/2013, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC was framed against the applicants. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, in October 2012 a marriage of Deepmala daughter of the deceased Anandi Raikwar was fixed with applicant No.2 Rajendra. Thereafter the engagement was dissolved. After sometime on 6.11.2012 the deceased Anandi Raikwar died before jumping a train, and therefore he committed suicide. After his death, a case of offence under Section 306 of IPC was registered against the applicants. A suicidal note was recovered from the spot after one month of the incident. After considering the submissio...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »