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.
Smt.Neha Sharma Vs. Rajendfra Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
1 M.C.C No.348/2010 Smt. Neha Sharma versus Rajendra Sharma 26.04.2013 Shri N.K.Tiwari learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandrapal Singh learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The applicant has filed this application seeking transfer of Civil Suit No.9-A/2009 filed by the respondent from the Court of Second Upper District Judge (Fast Track Court) Panna to Jabalpur. It is stated that the aforesaid case has been filed by the respondent seeking divorce in Tehsil Pawai District Panna whereas the applicant has filed two cases against the respondent, one under section 498-A of the IPC and another under Section 125 CrPC at Jabalpur. It is stated that the matter under section 125 CrPC, has been decided by the court below against which a revision has been filed which is pending before this Court but the case under section 498-A IPC is pending before the competent court and in such circumstances the suit filed by the respondent be transferred to Jabalpur a...
Mohd. Saleem Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.P.No.4419/2013 (PIL) 26.04.2013 Shri Abhishek Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 4. On payment of process fees by registered AD within one week, issue notice to the respondents No.2 and 3. Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks. In the meantime, Chief Health & Medical Officer, Jabalpur along with the Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur shall visit the slaughter house in question, inspect the entire slaughter house premises, facilities available therein, inspect entire condition of the slaughter house and file a report along with photographs before this Court on the next date of hearing. Be listed for hearing on 16-5-2013 along with W.P.No.6530/2012 [Smt. Neetu Tejkumar Bhagat and another versus State of M.P.and others.].Let a free copy of this order be supplied to Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for necessary action. C.c.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)...
Veeran and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
(1) Cr.A.Nos. 275 & 334/2006 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.275/2006 APPELLANTS:1. Veeran S/o Raptelal Kewat, aged 32 years 2. Madanlal S/o Mishrilal Kewat, aged 42 years, 3. Rammulal S/o Dulichand Kewat, aged 40 years, All residents of Village Nibhoura, Police Station Panagar, District Jabalpur M.P.. Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh, through Police Station Panagar District Jabalpur (M.P.). CRIMINAL APPEAL No.334/2006 APPELLANT: Mukesh Kumar Kewat S/o Mishrilal Kewat, aged 30 years, R/o Village Nibhoura, Police Station Panagar District Jabalpur (M.P) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Panagar, District Jabalpur (M.P.). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Shri ...
Veerendra Kumar Soni Vs. Ashok
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Writ Petition No ::7181. / 2013 Veerendra Kumar Soni versus Ashok and others 26.04.2013. Shri Anil Dwivedi for the petitioner. Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the trial court rejecting an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, in the matter of appointing a Commission for demarcation of the property in question, this writ petition has been filed. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. In the suit, proceedings for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is pending and for the purpose of finalizing the question of injunction, petitioner wanted appointment of a Commission for demarcation of the property and submission of a report. The said application has been rejected by the court below mainly on the ground that at this stage when proceeding for considering the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is in progress and when only existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss ...
Ms. Lata Mishra Vs. District Election Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
AFR W.A.No.107/2013 Ms.Lata Mishra District Election Officer, Rewa & another 26.4.2013 Shri S.P.Mishra, counsel for appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.A.G., for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 9.1.2013 passed in W.P.No.159/2013 by the writ Court, by which writ petition preferred by the appellant against an order dated 21.11.2012 Annexure P-11 of the District Judge, Rewa, by which the election petition filed by the petitioner bearing No.2/2010 was dismissed because of not compliance of section 441(3) of the M.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The default on the part of petitioner was that the petitioner had not deposited requisite amount alongwith Election petition which was Rs.250/-, but had deposited Rs.100/- after the expiry of period of filing of election petition, that is 30 days from the date from which the election was notified in the Gazette. The learned Election Tribunal had found that the election petition was not maintainable because of non-compl...
Smt. Meena Shrivastava Vs. Smt. Barkat Bi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Writ Petition No ::10395. / 2010 Smt. Meena Shrivastava versus Smt. Barkat Bi 26.04.2013. Shri Sidharth Gulati for the petitioner. Shri A.P.Singh for the respondent. Challenging an interlocutory order-dated 8.7.2010 passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.85- A/2009, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is defendant and is facing a suit for eviction filed by the respondent under various grounds contemplated under Section 12(1) (a).(b) and (c) of the MP Accommodation Control Act. The suit is progressing and was fixed for recording of evidence. On the ground that petitioner is suffering from various ailments and is unable to come to the Court, an application was filed for recording evidence of the petitioner on commission. This application has been rejected by the learned Court mainly on the ground that ailment of the petitioner is not such t...
Rampati Napit Vs. Shri V.P. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Rampati Napit versus Shri V.P.Singh and otheRs.Con.C.No.2006/12 25/04/13 Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Keeping in view the action taken by the respondents and the orders passed as contained in Annexures R-1 and R-2, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt. In case, petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which his claim for regularization has been considered, he is at liberty to challenge the same afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, finding no case made out for initiating action for contempt, this application is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Mayank Indane Gas Ageny Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
1 W.P.No.7044/2013 26/4/2013: Shri Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging lodging of an FIR against the petitioner and the action initiated for cancellation of LPG gas dealership, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner has been licensed to establish a LPG Gas dealership and is carrying out the activities at District Chhatarpur. On 12.2.2013 respondent No.3 inspected the godown of the petitioner and found various irregularities. Panchnama and Inspection report were prepared and based on the same a show cause notice Annexure P/4 has been issued to the petitioner pointing out various violations under the Petroleum Gas supply and distribution order 2000 and the petitioner is asked to show cause as to why his agency and license should not be cancelled. That apart, finding the breach of the petitioner to be an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, the competent authority has directed for lodging an FIR into the matter for the offence under Section 3...
Seva Sahkari Samiti Mydt. Chaukhandi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Writ Petition No ::6655. / 2013 Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit versus State of MP and others 26.04.2013. Shri Amit Khatri for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State. Shri Gopal Singh for respondent No.2. Petitioner/society had initially filed this writ petition and wanted quashment of certain inquiry report submitted by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rewa Division. Election to the post of office bearers and directors to the petitioner/society was held and it seems that in the process of election as there was some irregularity, respondent No.17 approached this Court in W.P.No.2303/2013 and vide Annexure P/15, on 15.2.2013, this Court directed for an inquiry being conducted into the matter, which was to commence from the stage of any irregularity being found. Contending that the Joint Registrar is conducting an inquiry in an illegal and arbitrary manner and is proceeding contrary to law, this writ petition has been filed. However, after filing ...
Choba Lal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
W.A.No.179/2013 26.04.2013 Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1771/2013 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking direction against the respondents to decide the application filed by the appellant dated 3.11.1993 for mining lease, has been dismissed. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition was filed after a period of near about 20 yeaRs.so the matter could not have been entertained. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after filing of the application in the year 1993, the respondents had pursued the matter on 29.3.1995 ( Annexure-P/2) and thereafter the respondents had directed for filing of an affidavit which the appellant had filed on 12.6.1997 (Annexure-P/3).So the appellant was vigilant to his right ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »