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.
Vijay Gala Vs. Shri Aklank Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
1 Writ Petition No.10621/2013. 24.6.2013 . Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate direction to the Court of 3rd Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur to expedite the trial of the C.O.S. No.70-A/2010 and conclude the same on merits on some early date. Along with the petition the entire proceeding of the trial Court conclusively has been placed on record as Annexure P.1. Having heard the counsel on perusing the aforesaid proceeding (Ann. P.1).I have found that after framing the issues and settling the same the fiRs.date for recording the evidence of the plaintiff was fixed on 4.10.2010 and thereafter for one reason or another the case was adjourned on various occasions for more than three yeaRs.After perusing the entire order sheets, in the available circumstances instead to admit or issue any notice to the other side the same ...
M.K.Sethi Vs. M/S. Mehar Cement,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
1 Writ Petition No.10439/2013. 24.6.2013 . Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the PetitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order 24.4.2013 (Ann. P.6).passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Maihar District Satna in Co.No.8-A/2012, whereby their application under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC for deleting some part of the pleadings of the suit filed by the respondents, has been dismissed. In the couRs.of the argument in response of some query of the Court, the petitioneRs.counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to raise all the grounds stated in the petition in the written statement, which is yet to be filed with further prayer to direct the trial Court that on pleading such things in the written statement by the petitioners the same be considered by framing the issues on such question in accordance with the scheme of Order14 Rule ...
inder Singh Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
MCC No.1382/2012 MCC No.1382/2012 24.6.2013 Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. In the light of order dated 7.11.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in contempt appeal No.6/2012, the applicant has moved the present application. However, contempt appeal was dismissed being not maintainable with the direction that appropriate proceeding may be initiated before the writ Court. According to that direction, it was not directed that the applicant shall move an application to get the writ order complied. The applicant has already moved a contempt appeal against various officers of the State Government and in that petition, the single Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.9.2012 has directed that the contempt proceeding could not be initiated and the not applicants were discharged from that proceeding with liberty that the applicant may start to challenge the action of the State afresh in accordance with la...
Naini @ Deonarayan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Cr.R.No.1020/13 24/06/13 Shri Devesh Khatri, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicants challenging their conviction by the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Katni in Criminal Case No.6398/06 to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Appeal filed having also been dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, this revision petition is filed. Case of the prosecution is that on 10/10/06 at about 9.00 A.M.when complainant Jhutan was cultivating his land, applicants herein assaulted him with lathis and, therefore, they were put to trial. Even though, learned counsel at the time of hearing did not challenge the finding on merit but contended that looking to the nature of injuries sustained by complainant Jhutan and considering the fact that applicants have been in jail for a cons...
Dharmendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Dharmendra versus State of M.P.Cr.R.No.898 24. 06.2013. Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant. Shri Pramod Chourasia, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Admit. Call for records. List for hearing along with the records. Heard on I.A.No.11268/2013, an application for grant of bail. Applicant has been convicted to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 354 of IPC. Considering the fact that the applicant has been convicted to undergo RI for six months and he has already been undergone imprisonment for about of six months, I.A.No.11268/2013 is allowed. Execution of jail sentence of applicant Dharmendra S/o. Mahesh is suspended subject to depositing fine amount if not already deposited within a period of one month from today and he is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance bef...
Narendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Narendra Singh versus State of M.P.Cr.R.No.916 24. 06.2013. Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for applicant. Shri Pramod Chourasia, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Admit. Call for records. List for hearing along with the records. Heard on I.A.No.11596/2013, an application for suspension of sentence filed by applicants. Applicant has been convicted to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 304-A of IPC and fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 39/192 of Motor Vehicle Act. Considering the fact that the imprisonment is only for 1 year and fine of Rs.3,000/- has already been deposited, I.A.No.11596/2013 is allowed. Execution of jail sentence of applicant Narendra Singh, S/o. Mangal Singh is suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before this Court on 4.9.2013 or on ...
Ramjan Khan Pathan Vs. Dr. Devraj Virdhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
-1- C.P.No.183/2013 24.6.2013 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent State. Order dated 3.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.15679/2012 whereby, direction was given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of II Krammonati as in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o Pramod Koranne versus State of M.P and others (W.P.No.6773/2006(s) decided on 26.1.2007).Respondents have considered and rejected the claim put forth by the petitioner vide order dated 13.2.2013. Petitioner is not satisfied with the said rejection order. Since the direction was for consideration and the same has been carried out, no case of willful disobedience is made out as would warrant any further proceedings against the respondents. The petitioner if so aggrieved by the said order he is at liberty to question order dated 13.2.2013 in an appropriate forum. With the aforesaid liberty present proceedings are dropped. Rule Nisi discharged. (SA...
Ashok Kumar Gangradey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
MCC No.1383/2012 MCC No.1383/2012 24.6.2013 Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. In the light of order dated 7.11.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in contempt appeal No.9/2012, the applicant has moved the present application. However, contempt appeal was dismissed being not maintainable with the direction that appropriate proceeding may be initiated before the writ Court. According to that direction, it was not directed that the applicant shall move an application to get the writ order complied. The applicant has already moved a contempt appeal against various officers of the State Government and in that petition, the single Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.9.2012 has directed that the contempt proceeding could not be initiated and the not applicants were discharged from that proceeding with liberty that the applicant may start to challenge the action of the State afresh in accordance with la...
Tulsi Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Cr.R.No.1121/2013 24/06/2013 Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Revision is admitted for hearing. Heard on I.A.No.13955/2013. Call for the records from the court below. List for hearing along with the records. Taking note of the fact that the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I.along with the fine amount of Rs.500/-, which amount has already been deposited by the appellant. Considering the aforesaid, I.A.No.13955/2013 is allowed. Appellant (Tulsi Pathak) is directed to be released on bail and operation of the sentence of conviction is directed to be suspended on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 4th of September, 2013 and on such other dates as may be ordered. With t...
Gopal Puri Vs. Madhyanchal GramIn Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.10649 / 2013 (Gopal Puri .versus Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Sagar & anr.) 24-06-2013 Heard Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition against an oral/telephonic communication made by the Regional Manager of the bank/respondent No.1. to the petitioner directing him to report at Bina Branch of the respondent/bank as he has been transferred from Rewa to Bina, District Sagar. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned communication is in violation of the transfer policy. The petitioner claims parity with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9497/2013(S).dated 3-6-2013, whereby the respondent/authorities have been directed to decide the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of transfer within six weeks and till then the impugned transfer order shall remain in abeyance so far as it relates to the petitioner. In the circumstances, without entering i...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »