Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Saurabh Rajoriya Vs. Surya Pratap Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2013
C.R.No.218/2013 (Saurabh Rajoriya versus S.P.Singh and otheRs.16.05.2013 Shri Prashant Singh with Shri Manas Verma, counsel for the applicant. Heard on the question of admission and stay. This revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Bareli District Raisen by which the application filed by the applicant under order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C.has been rejected by the court below. From a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the objections regarding jurisdiction raised by the applicant was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the party resides within the civil jurisdiction of the court at Bareli District Raisen and that the allotment of the petrol pump in respect of which the dispute has arisen between the parties is also within the civil jurisdiction of the court at Bareli. The trial court referring to the provisions of sections 16 and 20 of the C.PC. has rejected the application under order 7 r...
Bhav Singh Vs. Sarswati Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2013
M.C.C.No.582 / 2013 (Bhav Singh & others ....v.....Saraswati Bai & another) 16-05-2013 Heard Shri Ramakant Patel, learned counsel appearing for the applicants on the application for restoration of S.A.No.1303/2010. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that as the clerk of the counsel could not locate the aforesaid second appeal in the cause list and therefore he could not appear before the Court when the appeal was called for hearing on 25-3-2013 which resulted in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicants and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. It is directed that Second Appeal No.1303/2010 be restored to its original number subject to deposit of ` 500/- (Rupees five hundred) by the applicants' advocate with the Secretary, M.P.High Court Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur, within a week. A copy of this order be ...
Arvind Kumar Joshi Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2013
1 WP No.7637/13 16.05.2013. Shri Neetesh Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri Pratul Shandilya, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned standing counsel for respondent no.1. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl. AG for respondent no.2. Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Ad-interim writ This petition is filed challenging the notices of confiscation dated 9.4.13, issued by the Court of Authorized Officer under MP Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam,2011 in Special Case No.5/13 by which petitioners have been directed to show cause as under :- That your assets are disproportionate to your known sources of income; you are hereby called upon to report by 18th May,2013 as to your sources of income, earning of assets, out of which or by means of which you have acquired such money/property, the evidence on which you intend to rely upon and submit relevant information and particulars and show cause as to why all or any such money/property should not be declared to...
Raseed Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-2013
1...Cr.A.No.938 of 2005 Rasheed State of M.P.16.05.2013 Shri V.P.Singh, Counsel for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl. A.G.for the respondents. I.A.11351 of 2013 : For correction of Sessions Trial number in the order dated 18.4.2013. It is submitted by the appellant that in the memo of appeal by mistake case number has been typed as S.T.No.515 of 2002 while the correct number of Sessions Trial is 486 of 2002. It is submitted that it was in fact Crime Number and not the Sessions Trial number. We have perused the record and from the perusal of the Sessions Trial No.486 of 2002, we find the aforesaid contention correct. In view of the aforesaid, we direct that the order dated 18.4.2013 passed by this Court on the application of the appellant under Section 389(1) of Criminal Procedure Code be treated in respect of Sessions Trial No.486 of 2002 [Crime No.515 of 2002 of P.S.Hanumantal district Jabalpur].Accordingly this application is allowed. Certified copy today. (Krishn Kumar L...
Keshav Prasad Awasthi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Keshav Prasad Awasthi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :975. 15. 05.2013. Shri Maninder S. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State with Shri A.K.Singh, Collector Katni. Respondent No.3, Tahsildar, Vijayraghavgarh, Shri Prashant Shrivastava is also present. Shri Vipin Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is seen that petitioner has challenged the orders dated 5.4.2010 & 9.8.2011 passed by the Collector Katni as contained in Annexure P-7 and P-10 by which claim of petitioner was rejected. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 who are present in person point out that due to certain administrative reasons certain powers of Collector to deal with the matter was withdrawn and not again the powers have been restored. It is, therefore, stated by Shri Singh that he may reconsider the matter of petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law. In view of above, for...
Rajesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
1 Cr.R. No.561/2013 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.561/2013 APPLICANT : Rajesh S/o. Gyan Singh, R/o. House of Ghanshyam, Barela Gaon, Lalghati, Bhopal (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of M.P. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant by Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate. Respondent/State by Shri Pushpraj Singh, Public Prosecutor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (15.05.2013) This revision application under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed by the applicant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2013 passed by learned Special Judge (Attrocity) Bhopal dismissing the criminal appeal No.436/2012 and thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Ca...
S. Klhurshed Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
S. Khursheed Ali versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No :9302. 15. 05.2013. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order passed by court below whereby an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a commission has been rejected. Learned court has found that for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute in question appointment of commission is not necessary and has rejected the application, this writ petition is filed. Discretion exercised by the learned court and reasons given for rejecting the application cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference in the matter at this stage in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. With the aforesaid the writ petition is dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
Niveta Tiwari Vs. Registrar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
WP No.7891 o15. 5.2013. Shri Nityanand Mishra for the petitioner. Smt.Shobha Menon, Sr.counsel with Shri Rahul Choubey for the respondents. Petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the Notification dated 26.12.2012 as ultra virus (Annexure P-7) 7.2 To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the respondents for awarding of 2 marks of Grace in the Practical examination of MBBS Professional examination Part fiRs.held in November 2011 in the paper of Anatomy. 7.3 To issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents for issuing of revised mark sheet after granting benefit of Grace Marks of two number. 7.4 To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner for mental harassment. 7.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may ...
Ramnaresh Singh Gond Vs. Minister Incharge
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
W.A.436/2013 15.5.2013. Shri R.B.Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri D.K.Dixit, Advocate, for the respondent no.5. Notice on behalf of respondent No.5 is accepted by Shri D.K.Dixit. It is submitted by Shri Dixit that he has also filed an appeal against an impugned order registered as WA No.471/13. Office to list both the appeals for analogous hearing in FiRs.week of July 2013. Till next date of hearing it is directed that status quo as it exists today in respect of the post of Panchayat Karmi at village Panchayat Charkka, block Beohari district Shahdol be maintained by all the parties. Certified copy as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Acting Chief Justice JUDGE Ag W.A.1416/2012 21.12.2012 Shri Rajesh Dubey, Advocate, for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for two weeks' time to make the default good. Prayer allowed. Be listed after two weeks. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE JUDGE Ag W.A.1417/2012 21.12.2012 Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Gov...
Rama Autar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Rama Autar versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No :9036. 15. 05.2013. Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Grievance of petitioner is that without proper approval and without due sanction, a building is being constructed over the land of petitioner and, therefore, petitioner has submitted an objection which is pending before respondent No.3. Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondent No.3, the Collector is directed to consider and decide the representation of petitioner on filing a certified copy of this order and then only construction in the area shall be permitted. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE ss/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »