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.
Smt. Vimla Bai Vs. Shakti Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
C.R.No.203/2013 (Smt. Vimla Bai versus Shakti Singh and otheRs.15.05.2013 Smt. June Choudhary, learned senior counsel with Shri R. Yadav, for the applicant. The applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 13.02.2013 by which the application filed by the applicant under order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C.has been dismissed wherein the applicant had objected to the valuation of the suit as well as the court fees paid by the respondents in C.S.No.5-A/13 pending before the Second Civil Judge, Class- II, Hoshangabad. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the value of the property is in crores whereas the respondents have wrongly valued the same at Rs.20,000/- and on that basis the court below has determined the jurisdiction as well as court fees which is contrary to law. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that the court fee paid by the respondents is per se incorrect and is based upon the false averments made in the plaint ...
Vimal Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 8415 Of 2013 15.5.2013 Ms. Indu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Petitioner seeks quashment of First Information Report dated 2.4.2013 and a direction to take appropriate action on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 16.4.2013 and further direction that impugned first information report be referred to an impartial agency like Crime Investigation Department or other competent police officer beyond the jurisdiction of S.D.O (P) to establish its authenticity. Petitioner is a complainant of an incident which took place on 2.4.2013; wherein allegedly one Meenabai got injured which led to lodging of an FIR for an offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 109/34 I.P.C. Contention of the petitioner is that an offence under Section 307 IPC ought to have been registered against the miscreants instead of registration of a lesse...
Kishore Shah Vs. Smt. Meenal Shah
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
FiRs.Appeal No.160/2012 15.5.2013 Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate for the respondent. Appellant Husband Kishore Shah and respondent wife Smt. Meenal Shah are also present in person. This appeal by the appellant husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2012 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Burhanpur in Regular Civil Suit No.6-A/2010. Having regard to the nature of dispute between the parties, we asked Registrar (J-I) Smt. Giribala Singh to do mediation in order to resolve their differences. After mediation, the parties have agreed to settle their dispute on the following terMs.1. Respondent shall reside with appellant till 13th June 2013 and after joining school for a day on 14th June, 2013 will again take leave with or without pay and reside with the appellant for another continuous period of six months.2. The appellant will help the respondent in striving for another alternative job to the satisfaction of...
Ajay Mishra Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
1...Cr.A.No.174 of 2001 Ajay Mishra State of M.P.& others 15.05.2013 Shri Narayan Dubey, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, G.A.for the respondents. I.A.No.9278/13 for suspension of sentence and release on temporary bail to the appellant on the ground of marriage of his brother Babloo Mishra. This temporary bail is sought by the appellant on the ground that his younger brother Babloo is going to be married on 2.6.2013 and except the appellant, there is no other male member to take care of marriage. Appellant is having only old mother Smt. Anandi Bai and except her there is no other person in the family. It is also stated by the appellant that he is in custody since the date of incident i.e.17.9.1999 and a period of nearabout more than 13 years have elapsed since the date of incarceration. It is submitted that the appellant may be released on temporary bail. On notice respondents have verified the fact of the marriage and submitted the report of S.H.O.Gorakhpur, that ...
Suresh Kumar Katare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 8697 Of 2013 15.5.2013 Shri Sanjay Seth, learned counsel with Shri J.P. Dhimole, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent State on advance notice. Petitioner, a retired Sports Officer, having retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 28.2.2003 vide this petition seeks direction to respondents to revise the pay of the petitioner in terms of clause 3 (A) (one) of circular dated 11.10.1999. It is observed from record that one R.S. Shrivastava had preferred a writ petition before this Court vide W.P. No. 19933/2003 which was decided on 27.4.2010; wherein while taking into consideration the claim putforth direction was issued to the respondents to examine his case in light of clause 3 (A) (one) of circular dated 11.10.1999 for grant of one advance increment. To maintain parity, this petition is ...
Gokal Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :9358. of 2013 Gokal Prasad and others - V/s - State of MP & Collector, District, Narsinghpur. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R. Parashar, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 15/05/2013 Petitioners claim to be in possession of certain agricultural land, which was given to their ancestors much prior to coming into force of the M P Land Revenue Code, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Code).It is stated that in the settlement process that was conducted sometime in the year 1923-1924, the then Zamindars / Malgujars of the land gave the land to the ancestors of the petitioneRs.as they were working as Kotwars and since then the petitioners are in possession of ...
Smt. Sheela Tamrakar Vs. Smt. Damyanti Bai Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Smt. Sheela Tamrakar versus Smt. Damyanti Bai Patel & Anr. M.C.C.No.577 15. 5.2013 Shri P.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.6191/2008, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 8.11.2011. There being delay in filing this application, therefore, I.A.No.4898/2013 has been filed for condoning the delay. Delay in filing the application as well as default itself is attributed to some lapses on the part of counsel and applications are supported by affidavit of the counsel himself and there is no reason to disbelieve its bonafide. Considering the same both the applications, i.e.application for condonation of delay and restoration application itself, are allowed. Delay is condoned and W.P.No.6191/2008 is restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before an Appropriate Bench. Application stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*...
Bhilai Scan and Research Limited Vs. Mr. Anjani Kumar Trivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Arbitration Case No ::43. / 2012 Bhilai Scan & Research Limited versus Mr.Anjani Kumar Trivedi 15.05.2013. Shri Praveen Dubey for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that as a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, he may be permitted to withdraw this application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Learned counsel seeks liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, in case occasion arises in future. Permission granted. Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
M/S Digicable Netwark India Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
1 W.P. No.7083/2013 M/s Digicable Network India Pvt. Ltd. Union of India & others 15.5.2013 Shri Brian D'Silva, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, Counsel for petitioner. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondents No.1 & 6. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for respondents No.2 to 5. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Counsel for intervener M/s Siti Cable Network Ltd. Shri Anil Khare, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Priyankush Jain for intervener Indian Broadcasting Foundation. Shri Siddiqui submits that he has filed reply in W.P.No.5323/2013 and is adopting the return filed in the same case. He can do this by filing an appropriate application alongwith return and supplying copy of it to the petitioner. This be done within a period of one week from today. I.A.No.6482/2013 filed by intervener M/s Siti Cable Network Ltd. for vacation of ad interim writ Parties are heard on this application Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Union of India has not filed return t...
Shami Ahmed Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-15-2013
Writ Petition No.8055/2013 15.5.2013 Shri Siddharth Gulatee, Advocate for the petitioner. Heard on admission. In response to the advertisement published by the Railway Recruitment Board, the petitioner submitted his form for appointment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. The written examination was held on 6.6.2010 at about 10:00 a.m.in Tagore Public School, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. But because the petitioner was not having the admission card he was not allowed to appear in the examination. According to the petitioner although he had obtained the admission card through internet it was not accepted. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1029/2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal for directing the respondents to conduct fresh examination for him. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.9.2011 dismissed the original application in default because no one appeared even on second call. The order sheet dated 27.9.2011 also indicates that on earlier date also no one had appeared...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »