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.
Haridas Vs. Shanker
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Second Appeal No.359/ 2013 ( Haridas & ORS.Vs.Shanker & Ors ) 26-04-2013 Heard Shri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2013 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, to the Court of District Judge Damoh, in Regular Civil Appeal No.24-A/ 2008, whereby the judgment dated 22.1.2007 and decree dated 25.1.2007 passed by the 5th Civil Judge Class-II, Damoh, in Civil Suit No.108A/2004, has been set side. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction as well as for declaring the alleged Will executed in favour of the appellants to be fraudulent and concocted document and not binding. The suit filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Trial Court against which the respondents had filed an appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment. The l...
Chaturbuj Kurmi Vs. Ramsingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Writ Petition No ::6013. / 2013 Chaturbuj Kurmi and others versus Ram Singh and others 26.04.2013. Shri Harshit Patel for the petitioneRs.Respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. Petitioners filed written statement and a counter-claim. However, it is stated that during pendency of the suit, respondent No.2/plaintiff Sahab Singh died on 21.2.2012. When the petitioners came to knot about it, they immediately filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3(2) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for abatement of the suit. Respondents/plaintiffs filed their reply and opposed the prayer and also filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17, therefore, petitioners are before this Court. The learned Court has found that the suit has been filed jointly by more than three persons...
Utkarsh Indsutries Pvt Ltd Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.8029/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Satish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Considering the fact that the right of appeal to the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be resorted to due to non-availability of the presiding officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, as an interim measure, it is directed that till the next date of listing, further action for auctioning of the property in question and it's finalization in pursuance to the impugned notice Annexure-P33 available at Page-149 of the paper book shall remain stayed. List the matter for further orders on 7th of May, 2013. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Prakash Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.6760/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of P.F.within one week, returnable in four weeks. At this stage, Shri Vipin Mishra, learned counsel appears and takes notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. He brings to the notice of this Court certain documents to show that the impugned action has already been accepted by the petitioner and the amount has also been recovered. That being so, if the petitioner has to file any other documents with regard to the action taken and amend the writ petition, he may do the same within two weeks. List the matter for further orders after two weeks. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Deepak Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
WA No.264/13 26.04.13. Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for appellants. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy AG for respondent no.1 to 3 on advance notice. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 30th January, 2013 passed in WP No.6627/12 by which a writ petition preferred by the petitioners for direction against respondents to register a criminal case against private respondents under the provisions of Indian Penal Code was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file a private complaint or to raise all the contentions in the pending civil suit between the parties. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned single Judge has not considered this aspect that on 19.08.11 the SDM under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 directed handing over the possession to the other side and on 20 th August, 2011, the order was executed with the help of police. It is submitted that on 20th August, 2011 itself, appellants/petitioners had filed a revision and interim o...
Smt. Shashi JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
1 W.P.No.5809/2013 26/4/2013: Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week returnable in four weeks. At this stage Shri Vijit Sahu representing Shri S.S.Tiwari, learned counsel appears and takes notice on behalf of respondent No.17 and file his objection. A perusal of the material available on record prima facie goes to show that after election of Gram Panchayat the fiRs.meeting of Gram Panchayat as contemplated under Section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam was held on 17.2.2010. According to sub section 2 of Section 20 of the Adhiniyam, office bearers of Gram Panchayat are to hold office for a period of five years from the date of fiRs.meeting. If that be so, then the resolution for No Confidence Motion which was moved on 13.8.2012 was within the period o1. 2 years from the date of constitution of Gram Panchayat and prima facie it is a case where No Confidence Motion its...
M/S Aditya Geo Wealth Impex Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.2778/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Shreyash Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Amendment as prayed for vide I.A.No.5121/2013 is allowed. Amendment be incorporated within two days and, thereafter, notice be issued to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, keeping in view the circular issued by the Central Government as contained in Annexure-P5 dated 9.10.2001 issued by the Secretary, prima-facie, recovery of the dead rent from the petitioner seems to be unsustainable. In view of the above, the recovery ordered vide Annexure- P4 dated 19.7.2012 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Arun Vs. Subhash
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
1 W.P.No.6348/2013 26/4/2013: Shri S.K.Agrawal with Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 24.1.2013 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Betul in Civil Suit No.35A/ 2012. Petitioner is defendant and wanted to amend the written statement at the stage when the evidence of the defendant was in progress. The written statement was filed by the petitioner on 8.11.2012 and as application for amendment was filed belatedly and no justification for the delay was coming, the application for amendment has been rejected. Even though Shri S.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to emphasize that petitioner acquired knowledge about facts mentioned in the application only belatedly, the requirement of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC contemplates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced until the Court comes to the conclusion that inspit...
M/S Sarti Minerals Prop. Aditya Geowealth Impex Vs. the State of Madhy ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.2782/2013 26/04/2013 Shri Shreyash Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Amendment as prayed for vide I.A.No.5236/2013 is allowed. Amendment be incorporated within two days and, thereafter, notice be issued to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, keeping in view the circular issued by the Central Government as contained in Annexure-P5 dated 9.10.2001 issued by the Secretary, prima-facie, recovery of the dead rent from the petitioner seems to be unsustainable. In view of the above, the recovery ordered vide Annexure- P4 dated 19.7.2012 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
S.R. Lade Vs. Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
1 W.P.No.2364/2013 26/4/2013: Shri A.T.Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. Considering the fact that it is not reported that the other guarantors have compromised the matter with the Bank in question by settling the dispute for an amount of Rs.4.50 Lacs, the original title deed of petitioner's house be returned back to the petitioner on his submitting proper ID proof and other documents required in accordance to the Circulars and Banking Regulation applicable in the matter. With the aforesaid direction to the Bank, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. ( Rajendra MeNo.) Judge Mrs.mishra...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »