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.
Pratap Singh @ Partu Vs. Bhagwan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
M.A No.2421 o1. 04.13 Shri Pankaj Tiwari, counsel for the appellants. Shri Paritosh Trivedi, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Santosh Yadav, PL for respondent No.4. The appellants/ plaintiffs have filed this appeal under Order 43 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.11 passed by IInd Addl. District Judge, Damoh in Co.No.15-A/10 whereby their application filed under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC has been dismissed in a suit filed for partition and permanent injunction and this matter is listed today for consideration of IA No.2744/13 respondents application for early hearing as well as for consideration of IA No.6804/11 appellants application for issuing ad- interim injunction against the respondents. Having heard on IA No.2744/13 respondents application for early hearing, for the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and case is taken-up forr final disposal. In such premises, there is no need to pass any further order on IA No.6804/11 appellants...
Smt. Bhanwati Dubey (Dwivedi) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4852/20101. 04.2013 Shri Ravendra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the amount of gratuity of husband of the petitioner was duly sanctioned way back but the said amount has not been credited in the bank account of the petitioner by the Treasury. The bank has certified that the amount of gratuity has not been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. Looking to the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to look into the claim of the petitioner and if it is found that the amount of gratuity has not yet been paid to the petitioner, the said amount be paid within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of gratuity till its realization. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Jaideep Singh Munda Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.10141/2012 (Jaideep Singh Munda versus State of MP and otheRs.01.04.2013 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P.L.for the State. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.06.2012 by which he has been suspended and order dated 28.06.2012 directing issuance of charge sheet. The respondents have filed a return and have stated that by order dated 17.09.2012 both the aforesaid orders have been cancelled. In view of the return filed by the respondents, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition which is rendered infructuous on account of issuance of the subsequent order dated 17.09.2012. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Mayaram Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
M.Cr.C. No.2464/2013 1.4.2013 Smt. Amrit Ruprah, counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA, for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.210/2012 registered at Police Station Govindgarh, District Rewa for offence punishable under Section 407 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that applicant himself has lodged a report in regard to the fact that his truck not MP-53 HA/0770 had burnt accidentally. In support of aforesaid contention he filed a copy of the report lodged at police Station Govindgarh (Annexure-A/ 2).He has no criminal past. He is ready to co-operate during investigation. He is reputed person of the society and in the event of arrest, his reputation would be tarnished, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel f...
Mukunti and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1330/1999 Mukundi Gadariya & others VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.S.Patel, counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 2nd day of April, 2013) The applicants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 386 of IPC vide judgment dated 4.3.1999 passed by the JMFC, Tikamgarh (Smt.Renuka Kanchan) in criminal case No.61/1998 and each sentenced for 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In criminal appeal No.20/1999 the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge vide judgment dated 11.8.1999 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicants have preferred th...
Smt.Pallavi Kasal Vs. Prathvi Raj Kasal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.2092/2012 01.04.2013 Shri R.P.Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicants have challenged the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur on the ground of jurisdiction. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the applicants gave their address through one Mamta Ghambir, but they could not say that they are residents of Jabalpur, and therefore the Family Court Jabalpur had no jurisdiction to try the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.No document was filed before the trial Court to show that the applicants were the residents of Jabalpur, and therefore the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur has rightly considered and found that the Family Court Jabalpur has no jurisdiction to try the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.filed by the appli...
Smt. Indira Gandhi Higher Secondary School Rajegaon Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WP 2262.13 Writ Petition No.2262 of 2013 (Smt. Indira Gandhi Higher Secondary School, Rajegaon, tahsil-Moharved, district- Chhindwara and two others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and two otheRs.01-04-2013 Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State on advance notice. Heard. Petitioner, a not Government Educational Institution, being aggrieved by an order dated 05/06-10-2004 (mentioned as 05/06-10-2002 in paragraph 7 of the writ petition) has filed this writ petition. Vide impugned order 54 not Government Educational Institutions including the petitioner, which were taken over by the Government by order dated 22-03-2002, 30-03-2002 and 29-07-2002 were delisted and the order of taking over of Educational Institution was quashed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the correctness of aforesaid order was tested before Gwalior Bench of this Court forming subject matter of Writ Petitions No.663/...
Prem Narayan Noriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4889/20101. 04.2013 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioner though was identically placed as peon who was appointed by the School Education Department, has not been granted the similar benefits in the matter of grant of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment, therefore, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is contended that the case in hand is covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12266/2011(S) decided on 10.08.2011. It is further contended that in fact the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.128/1999 (Smt. Savitri Bai versus State of M.P.).directed the State Government to consider the case of employees for grant of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment. Such order passed by the Tribunal was considered by the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4389/2003 decided o...
Ramu @ Ramgopal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Cr.R.No.502/2013 1.4.2013 Shri R.S.Parihar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 18.1.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Katni whereby an application of the prosecutrix under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C was accepted and she was called again for her statements. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the prosecutrix has submitted an affidavit in support of her application that the applicant gave her an assurance that he will maintain the prosecutrix and her children and therefore, under his assurance she gave favorable statement in the case of rape. However, after her examination the applicant ousted her children and therefore, she prayed to give the statement again. Under such circumstances, the prosecutrix is to be permitted to give her actual...
Shyam Lal Choudhary Vs. Brij Kishore Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
MCC No.1706 o1. 04.13 Shri Kapil Patwardhan, counsel for the applicant. He is heard on IA No.14454/11, an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition for restoration of MA (UNR) No.74/02 which has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 4.8.11. I am apprised by the applicant's counsel that the aforesaid appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution before passing any order to issue any notice to the respondents and, in such premises, he prayed to consider the aforesaid IA by adopting some lenient view for condoning the delay in filing the petition. Having herd, perused, the IA, for the reason stated in it, I am of the considered view that no notice is necessary to the other side because the appeal was dismissed before passing any order to issue any notice to the respondents. Besides this for the reasons stated in the IA, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the alleged delay in filing the MCC, hence by allowing the same, the delay i...
- ‹ Prev
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 73
- Next ›
- Last »