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.
Janardan Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2013
M.C.C.No.550/13 03-05-2013 Heard Shri Ajit Singh, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of R.P.173/2013. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on account of the fact that as he was out of station he could not attend the hearing of the case which resulted in dismissal of R.P.No.173/13 for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.03.2013 passed in R.P.No.173/2013 is recalled and the aforesaid is directed to be restored to its original number. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of R.P.No.173/13 and the review petition be listed on 06.05.2013. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Parveen Bee Vs. Sushila Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2013
Second Appeal No.868/2012 ( Parveen Bi .Vs..Sushila Devi ) 03-05-2013 Shri Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4-7-2012 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge (Fast Track).Katni, in Civil Appeal No.58-A/2011 whereby the judgment and decree dated 14-11-2011 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-I, Katni in Civil Suit No.2-A/2010 has been affirmed and confirmed and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the ground of nuisance has been affirmed. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that both the Courts below have in fact recorded a finding to the effect that it was the plaintiff/respondent herself who was creating nuisance and impediment in peaceful enjoyment of the accommodation and in such circumstances the alleged nuisance...
Bimala Singh Parihar Vs. Madan Mohan Ram Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2013
F.A.No.517.06 Misc. Appeal No.517 o03. 05-2013 Smt. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel with Shri R. Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K.B.Bhatnagar, with Shri A.K.Pyasi, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. This FiRs.Appeal is directed against the judgment and Decree dated 29-03-2006 passed in Civil Suit No.8-A/2005; whereby, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction at the instance of appellant and her husband has been dismissed. Husband who was plaintiff No.1, having expired during pendency of Civil Suit has been deleted from the array of plaintiffs. Parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and dependent, throughout the judgment. Residential house of 1000 sq. ft. built over Plot not I-2, Punjabi Bagh, Raisen Road, Bhopal is owned by the defendant. Defendant's daughter Renu was married to plaintiff No.1's (since deceased) father as his second wife after the death of his fiRs.wife, mother of plaintiff No.1 and father-in-law of present appellant. That in ...
Kalu (D) Through L.R.'s Loknath Kachhi Vs. Chhotelal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2013
M.C.C.No.455/2013 [ Kalu (since dead) through Loknath Kachhi & others ..Vs..Chhotelal & another].03-05-2013 Heard Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants on the application for restoration as well as on I.A.No.3883/2013 for condonation of delay. This application has been filed for restoration of S.A.No.626/2005 which was dismissed on 31-10-2007 for want of prosecution. The reason for condoning the delay mentioned by the applicants is that by surfing the Net they came to knot on 8-2-2013 that the appeal has been dismissed on 31-10-2007 and thereafter they contacted their counsel, Shri S.P.Tiwari, on mobile but as no satisfactory reason was given by the learned counsel, they came to Jabalpur and engaged a new counsel and filed this application. The application, however, does not mention as to why the applicants did not surf the Net between October 2007 and February 2013 and why they did not pursue or seek information about the case during this period. There is no satisf...
Shriniwas Tiwari Vs. Rajkumar Urmalia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Election Petition No.9/2009 Shriniwas Tiwari, son of Late Mangaldeen Tiwari, Aged about 82 years, Resident of Village Tiwani Tahsil Mangawan Distt. Rewa Present Address Amahiya Distt. Rewa Petitioner vs.1. Rajkumar Urmalia, son of Indrajeet Prasad Village Dabhaura, Tahsil Teonthar Distt. Rewa 2. Pradeep Singh Patana, son of Bhagwat Singh Village Mahmoodpur Tahsil Mangawan Distt. Rewa & 23 others Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Susheel Kumar Tiwari and Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Dileep Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.1. Shri Neeraj Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. None for the respondent Nos.3 to 25, though served. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing :12. 2.2013 Date of Judgment :03. 5.2013 JUDGMENT In this petition, election of the returned candidate viz. the respondent no.1 fr...
Smt. Kamla Lodhi Vs. Mukesh Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2013
C.R.No.186/2013 (Smt. Kamla Lodhi and others versus Mukesh Dubey and another) 03.05.2013 Shri Rajneesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants. Heard. The applicants have filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 08.02.2013 passed by 11th Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur in C.S.No.18-A/12 by which the application filed by the applicants under order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C.praying for dismissal of the suit filed by the respondents, has been rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants had filed the aforesaid application bringing to the notice of the court that the suit filed by the respondents did not disclose any cause of action not did it prima facie make out any ground for entertaining the suit and that it was also barred by limitation, but the court below rejected the same on the ground that prima facie the issue raised by the applicants requires adjudication after adducing the evidence, therefore the suit cannot be dismissed at init...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jitendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-2013
M.A. No. 1401 of 2011 3.5.2013 Shri Ajit Agrawal, learned counsel for appellants. Heard on admission. Appellant, Insurance Company being aggrieved by Award dated 28.1.2011 passed in M.V.C No. 55/2010, awarding sum of Rs.1,55,000/ towards compensation in lieu of death of a 5 years old child has preferred this appeal. The respondent No. 1 along with his son Kirtiraj @ Mohit age 5 years was travelling from village Chendia in Eicher Truck No. MP/09/KC/0268, registered as Good Carrying Commercial vehicle on 24.4.2008 as a care taker of the Goods (ngst dk lkeku). The truck turned turtle at village Sulgaon Road resulting in death of Kirtiraj on spot. Alleging that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 3/ Non applicant No. 1, respondent No. 1 and 2, the claimant filed claim case MVC No. 55/2010 for compensation of Rs.5,05,000/ Owner and driver of offending truck remained ex parte. The Insura...
R.K. Raghuvanshi Vs. Shri S.R. Mohanti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
Con.C.No.1392/2012 02/05/2013 Shri Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the non-applicants. Respondents have filed the reply and have brought on record the order Annexure-R1 and R2 showing pay fixation of the petitioner. However, grievance of the petitioner in the contempt application is that inspite of passing the order dated 14/15.3.2012 vide Annexure-C3, the actual benefit accruing to the petitioner is not being paid. Averments are made in this regard in Para-6 & 7 of the contempt application. The reply of the respondents does not show as to when after passing of the order, arrears have been paid to the petitioner. Respondents are directed to file return indicating as to when the benefit accruing to the petitioner has been paid. The averments made by the respondents in the return only goes to show that after making pay fixation, the service book of the petitioner and orders have been sent to the Divisional Pension Officer, Satpu...
Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR W.A. No.1307/2011 Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Harcharan Sahu, Aged about 31 years, Computer Operator in Office of Govt. English Foreign Liquor House, Sagar (M.P.), R/o 26, Sneh Nagar, Behind Central Jail, Shivaji Nagar, Sagar (M.P.) .............Appellant VERSUS 1 State of Madhya Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, M.G. Road, Indore (M.P.) 3. Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board, Through its Controller, Chayan Bhawan, Main Road No.1, Chinar Park (East), Bhopal (M.P.) ...... Respondents Present: Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting C.J.Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Jain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rahul Choubey, for the appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent...
Commissioner Central Excise Vs. M/S Raymond Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-2013
C.E.R.No.59/2000 [Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal versus M/s Raymonds LTD.Sausar].02.05.2013 Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the a applicant. Shri Prasad Paranjape and Shri Satish Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. This is an application filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhopal under Section 35(H) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for issuance of a direction to the CustoMs.Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for referring the matter to the High Court on the question raised in the application for its opinion. The question of law that has been raised in the application by the Revenue reads thus: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that provisions of Rule 57G cannot be applied to the case covered by Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ?. Before considering the aforesaid prayer it would be appropriate to illustrate the factual position in the present case. The respondent, M/s Raymonds ...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »