Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Yogesh Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Cr.A.No.2115/2007 25/06/2013 Shri S.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging his conviction for offences under Section 397 IPC r/w Section 25 (1-B).of Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo maximum 7 years R.I.along with a fine of `500/- vide judgment dated 18.7.2007, this appeal has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the appellant is in custody since the date of incident i.e.7.5.2006 and as on date, entire jail sentence of 7 years is already over and the appellant has undergone the same. In all probability the jail sentence would have been over, however, the counsel for the parties are not aware of the factual position. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the appellant shall not be required to undergo further jail sentence in connection with the present case as the jail sentence has already been undergone by the appellant impugned in this appeal and, th...
Nirmal Kuamr Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
W.P.No.10088/2008(S) Nirmal Kumar Tripathi vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 25.06.2013 Shri D.K.Dixit learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri B.K.Bais learned counsel for respondent no.5. Though several issues have been raised by the petitioner in the present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in W.P No.5389/2002 and connected matteRs.Annexure P-4, decided on 17.7.2007, which squarely covers the issue raised by the petitioner and is against him, submits that the issue raised by the petitioner appears to be squarely covered and, therefore, the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant in accordance with and in line with the decision of the State Government dated 12.5.1998 and 23.5.1998 as has been ordered by this C...
Smt. Saroj Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
1 W.P.10731 o25. 6.2013 Shri Manindra S. Bhatti and Shri D.R.Vishwakarma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, PL for the respondents/State. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the orders dated 20.5.13 and 4.6.13 Annx.P/10 and P/11 passed by the respondent No.4 and 3 respectively. According to such earlier document Annex.P/10 under the instructions of respondent No.3 Addl. Commissioner, the respondent No.4 by taking steps, has send such letter to the SHO, Police Station Khamariya, District Jabalpur for registration of the offence against the petitioners.2. On challenging such letter by way of the appeal on behalf of the petitioners, on consideration the same was dismissed by respondent No.3 Addl. Commissioner vide dated 4.6.13 Annex.P/11.3. Initially the case was argued at length but in response of some query of the court, petitioners counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with...
Suresh Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Writ Petition No.10351/2008 (Suresh Kushwaha versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.25-06-2013 Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned G.A.for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. Shri K.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 5-8-2008 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in revision whereby the order dated 9-3-2006 passed by the S.D.O., Maihar, District Satna upholding the resolution of Gram Panchayat Badera removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi has been up held. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 31-3-2006 passed by the Collector, Satna, denotifying the petitioner as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Badera, pursuant to resolution of the Gram Panchayat. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in the year 1995 and thereafter as Pan...
Bhairo Singh Vs. Gulab
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
C.R. No.789/2003 (1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Gupta Civil Revision No.789/2003 Applicant : Bhairo Singh Plaintiff Versus Respondent : Gulab Defendant ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ranjeet Singh, counsel for the applicant. Smt. Sarita Chourasiya, counsel for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 25.06.2013) The applicant has preferred a civil suit against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,000/- and interest on the basis of the receipt taken in ledger, which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Nasrullahganj, District Sehore vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.1998 in Civil Suit No.10-B/1998. The Civil Appeal No.1-B/1999 preferred by the applicant was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nasrullahganj, District Sehore. Being aggrieved w...
Nandilal Paatel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Cr.A.2299/2012 24/6/2013: None for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. I.A.No.13132/2013 has been filed seeking for bail of the appellant. Appellant has been convicted for various offences and was in custody. However, on the ground that he has not appeared, bailable warrants were issued to him and records indicate that pending execution of the bailable warrant, the appellant surrendered before the Jail authorities and is in custody since 10.4.2013. None appeared for the appellant. While on bail is extended by indicating that appellant did not receive proper communication from the counsel with regard to date of appearance and pointing out certain other communication gap between the counsel and the appellant, prayer made is that not appellant be released on bail. Taking note of the fact that the appellant has been convicted to a maximum imprisonment for only period of two years and is in custody for three months and reasons given by him for releasing on...
Venkteshwar Dwivedi Vs. Smt. Ruchi Dwivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No ::6334. / 2013 Venkteshwar Dwivedi and others versus Smt. Ruchi Dwivedi and others 23.06.2013. Shri Sanjay Seth for the petitioneRs.None for the respondents. Seeking quashment of a criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners at the instance of respondent No.1, for certain offence under sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, this application has been filed for quashment of MJ.No.703/2012, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Bhopal. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2; and, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the father and sister of petitioner No.1. Interalia contending that the complaint filed by respondent No.1 with regard to harassment and allegations made in the complaint are false and she has falsely implicated the petitioners only because certain proceedings for divorce are pending in the appropriate Family Court, this application is filed un...
Arun Tiwari Vs. Smt. Geeta Kiran Deshpande
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
1 Writ Petition No.10571/2013. 24.6.2013 . Shri D.N.Shukla, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ defendant has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the Order dated 3.4.2013 (Ann. P.1).passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal in Co.No.230-A/2007 whereby his application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Commissioner to call the demarcation report regarding disputed site and property. In the couRs.of the arguments on asking the petitioner's counsel regarding present status of the impugned trial, on which he fairly submits that the same is at the stage of recording the evidence of petitioner/ defendant as the evidence of plaintiff has already been recorded. Again on asking the counsel that without recording the entire evidence in trial how the demarcation report to collect the evidence for any of the parties, could be called, on which at this stage the counsel seeks permissio...
National Insurance Company Vs. Krishnakant Gautam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
M.A.No.1782/2013 24/06/2013 Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in two weeks. Notice be also issued on I.A.No.6764/2013. Call for the records from the court below. List for hearing along with the records. Considering the fact that the statutory amount as required under the Motor Vehicle Act has been deposited by the Insurance Company and prima-facie, there seems to be breach of policy condition due to which Insurance Company may not be liable to pay the amount, further recovery of the amount in pursuance to the impugned award shall remain stayed. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Bhurkan Bai Vs. Dhekal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
SA No.536/2013 24.06.2013 Shri Ajay Sen, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on IA No.6667/13, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The appellant has filed the present appeal with a delay of 338 days. The reason of delay is mentioned that the appellant was not aware about the decree passed by the appellate Court or time was required for getting the certified copy in the matter, and therefore it is prayed that the delay may be condoned. If the certified copies of the appellate decree and judgment are perused, then it is clear that the same were received by the learned counsel for the appellant in the month of June 2012. Therefore, it appears that the appellant did not contact with her counsel. In civil case, it is for the litigant to remain in contact with the advocate and for her own fault she could not get any advantage for illiteracy or any other reason. When the copy of the appellate decree was received in the mont...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »