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.
Vijendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 W.P.No.4936/2013 1/4/2013: Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. It is the grievance of the petitioners that a complaint has been lodged by them before respondent No.3 against respondent No.5 wherein it is stated that respondent No.5 has defrauded the petitioners in as much as by keeping them in dark and by misrepresentation they have to purchase certain property which in fact is not granted in decree to respondent No.4. As a result due to fraud committed by respondent No.5 petitioners are suffering. Be it as it may, as the matter is pending before the respondent No.3, not respondent No.3 is required to look into the same and proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly it is directed that without interferring with the judgment and decree if respondent No.3 is satisfied that some criminal offence is committed by respondent No.5, respondent No.3 is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance to law. With...
Amit Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 MCRC. No.1626 /2013 1.4.2013 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv.for the petitioner/applicant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, GA for state. Heard. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Sani @ Akash Pratap Singh has been granted bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C in Misc.Cr.Case No.729/2013 on20/02/2013 for the offence u/s 395, 397 of IPC and 11 and 13 of A.D.Act that looted gun itself was seized from the possession of complaiant Surendra Verma hence the applicant may be entitled to grant anticipatory bail . Learned counsel for the State objected and submits that though the case is similar but as per incident of the case is u/s 11 and 13 of the MP Dacoiti Act (AD Act) in which there is specific bar for anticipatory bail. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant wants to withdraw this application with direction that on applicant being surrendered before the Court or on he being arrested and brought before the trial Court then the applicant Amit Gupta may be released on bail and his bail ap...
Suraj Balmik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2511/2013 1/04/2013 Shri A.K.Soni, 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 20/1/13 in connection with Crime No.45/13 registered at P.S.Garha, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under section 34 (2) of the M.P.Excise Act. As per prosecution illicit liquor has been seized from the possession of this applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. 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 the application. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the gravity of offence and period of custody suffered by this applicant in jail, I am of the considered view that it...
Sameer Gupta Vs. Smt. Anjali Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
CRR No.409/2013 Criminal Revision No.409/2013 1.4.2013 Shri S.P.Singh, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 20.2.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in MJ.No.4/2013, whereby a maintenance of Rs.3.500/- was granted to the respondent. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has discussed the reasons in detail in favour of the respondent, not to reside with the applicant. He found that the applicant had moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights and when the respondent was ready to reside with him then, he withdrew the application and therefore, it is apparent that it is the applicant who does not want that the respondent should reside with him. The respondent has sought for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for her maintenance but, the trial Court granted only...
Samay Pal Maha Sangh Bhopal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.5175/2013 03/04/2013 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner/ Association is that the State Government has issued an order dated 9.9.2009 directing for granting certain training to Time KeepeRs.It is stated that in all the districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the said decision has been implemented but only in the district of Rewa, the aforesaid decision is not implemented. In this regard, the Petitioner/Association has also submitted a representation, wherein the Superintendent Engineer has directed for compliance but no action is taken. Keeping in view the same, it is directed that Respondent No.1, Principal Secretary of the Department and Respondent No.2 Chief Engineer, Public Works Department shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and issue necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of one month. It is directed that all the grievances of the petitioner with regard to the training and entry in the measurement...
Bhuwan Lal Damahe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4750/20101. 04.2013 None for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. Perused the records. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ pet...
Keerti Mishra Vs. Pawan Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Second Appeal No.1098/2011 (Keerti Mishra versus Pawan Shukla) 01.05.2013 Heard Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.22-A/2011 by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad whereby judgment and decree dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Hoshangabad in C.S.No.5-B/2008 has been affirmed and confirmed and the suit filed by the respondent has been decreed to the extent of Rs.Nineteen Thousands with interest at the rate of 6% in case of default of repayment by 17.06.2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from perversity and material irregularity as both the courts have totally ignored the document Ex. D/3, according to which the entire payment due to the respondent, had been made by the appellant. It is submitted that the cour...
Bindu Sahu Vs. Shri Hari Narayanchari Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
CONC 1916...
Rajkumar Sisodiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P. No. 3350 Of 2013 1.4.2013 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard. Petitioners vide this petition seek direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Collector and Tahsildar Betul to decide the application of the petitioners for allotment of land under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Gramon Mein Ki Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1970 and amendment in 2012. The direction is sought on the anvil of the facts that the petitioners, who are landless, occupied a portion of land bearing Khasra No. 241 recorded as road in the revenue record. Having encroached upon the same the petitioners on the anvil of provisions of Madhya Pradesh Gramon Mein Ki Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1970 and some announcement published in Newspapers filed an application for allotment of said land in their favour as the petitioners have constructed a house ...
Shri Umesh Gadve Vs. the Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.5162/2013 03/04/2013 Shri AdaRs.Muni Trivedi, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Ashish Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Prima-facie, from the material available on record, it is seen that petitioner has not been dispossessed, he is still in possession and, therefore, by virtue of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, not possession cannot be taken over. Respondents are directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner and status-quo in the matter, as is existing today, shall be maintained until further ordeRs.Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
- ‹ Prev
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- Next ›
- Last »