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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Lata Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
WA No.1308 o24. 6.2013. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.AG for the appellant. respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Pratyush Tripathi for respondent. Heard on admission. This appeal is admitted for final hearing. Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri Pratyush Tripathi. I.A.No.14524/12 for stay : Notice of this application is accepted by Shri Tripathi. He prays four weeks' time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. It is submitted by Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy.AG that the respondent has initiated contempt proceedings before the writ Court so till the hearing of this application, operation of the impugned order may be stayed. Though prayer is opposed by Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent,but, considering the aforesaid factual situation, it is directed that the operation of the impugned order dt.10.11.2011 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.24380/2003 shall remain stayed. Be listed for hearing along with W.A.39/13. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Act...
Kailash Kumar Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.9627/2013 (Kailash Kumar Ahirwar & another versus State of MP & otheRs.24.06.2013 Heard Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned G.A.for the State submits that a similar petition which has been registered as W.P.No.6129/13(S) raising identical issue has already been dismissed by this court on 15.04.2013, copy of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is produced before this court. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned G.A.for the State which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition filed by the petitioner is also dismissed in similar terms and for the same reasons, which may be read as part of this order as stated in W.P.No.6129/13(S) on 15.04.2013. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct/msp...
Dr. Vijaya Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
WA No.39 o24. 6.2013. Shri A.K.Chitle, Sr.counsel with Shri Akshay Sapre for the appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.AG for the respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Pratyush Tripathi for respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 raised following preliminary objections against admission of this appeal:1. That, the appellant was not party before the writ Court, so she is not entitled to file this appeal.2. That, the initial appointment of the appellant is illegal, so she is not entitled to assail the impugned order. In reply to the aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by Shri Chitle, learned Sr.counsel that by the impugned order, the appellant's seniority has been affected adversely,so she has right to challenge the order passed by the writ Court which has been passed without extending an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, as she was not party before the writ Court. So far as second objection is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Chitle that the initial appointment was n...
ishwar Singh Tomar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
MCC No.1381/2012 MCC No.1381/2012 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.10/2012, 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 l...
Pintu @ Pradeep Kumar and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Cr.A.No.867/1997 24/06/2013 Shri Sumit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Pramod Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A.No.13151/2013 an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the non-appearance of the counsel for the appellants that the case was taken up for hearing on 15.1.2013 and bailable warrant has been issued and the appellants have been arrested. It is pointed out that on 23.9.1997 the appellants were granted exemption from appearing and they were regularly appearing before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahdol but only because of the non-appearance of the counsel, the impugned action has been taken. The appellants submit that they shall regularly appear and make representation as to when the case is listed for hearing. Keeping in view the same, it is directed that the appellants (Pintu @ Pradeep Kumar & Sanjay Mishra) be released on bail on their furnishing a...
Vishal Kumar JaIn Vs. Madhyanchal GramIn Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
W.P.No.10650 / 2013 (Vishal Kumar Jain..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 Shivpuri Branch of the respondent/ bank as he has been transferred from Rewa to Shivpuri. 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...
Rameshwar Neekhra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
---1--- W.P.No.9226/2013 & W.P.No.8459/2013 24.6.2013 Shri R.L.Gupta, counsel with Shri D. Upadhyaya, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A.for the respondents. Considering the controveRs.involved in this case and in W.P.No.8459/2013, both the matters are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from W.P.No.9226/2013. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.8459/2013. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for registration of a property within the municipal limits of District- Jabalpur exorbitant price of the properties has been fixed, which are more than three times of the guidelines fixed in the last year. It is submitted that in other districts of the State, the price has been enhanced up to 10% - 20%, while in Jabalpur it has been enhanced up to 300%, which is beyond the factual position. It is submitted that till date the respondent has not filed reply in the matter, so in case the resp...
Devi Alias Devenda Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Devi @ Devendra & Another versus State of M.P.Cr.R.No.905 24. 06.2013. Shri Shivendra Pandey, learned counsel for applicants. 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.11393/2013, an application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicants. Applicants have been convicted to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- each for offence under Section 327 and 332 of IPC. Taking note of totality of circumstances, the conviction of sentence and the fact that applicants have already been undergone imprisonment for more than 45 days, I.A.No.11393/2013 is allowed. Execution of jail sentence of applicants Devi @ Devendra, S/o. Premnarayan and Mitthi @ Mithilesh Singh S/ o. Khilan Sing are suspended subject to depositing fine amount if not already deposited within a period of one month from today and they are directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-...
Raju Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
Cr.R.No.1068/13 24/06/13 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer for the State This application has been filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of an inter-locutory order dated 19/01/13 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Session Trial No.336/10 whereby permission to cross-examine PW-6 a witness Ahilya Bai has been denied. The witness was presented on behalf of the prosecution on the date in question i.e.on 28/02/12 and after examination-in-chief of the witness was over when the witness was presented for cross-examination by the accused appellant, a junior counsel expressed his inability to conduct the cross-examination. However, as the senior was not present and when the accused himself present did not cross- examine the witness, the impugned order closing the right of the applicant to cross-examine the witnesses is passed which is not challenged in this revision petition after the applicatio...
Narayan Prasad Vs. Rajendra Kumar Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2013
CR No.377/2012 24.06.2013 Shri A. Usmani, Advocate for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Sagar in Misc. Appeal No.16/2012. The brief facts of the case are that a decree was directed by the District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No.9-A/2007 vide judgment and decree dated 8.3.2007 that the respondent No.3 shall get the possession of Survey No.1537 from the respondents No.1 and 2. Thereafter execution proceedings were initiated. The Nazir, who executed the possession warrant has given a report that possession of the land bearing Survey No.1537 was given to the decree-holder by dispossessing the judgment-debtors No.1 and 2. However, the decree-holder claims that there is possession of the judgment-debtors in front of his house, and therefore that possession be removed. It was informed before the Executing Court that the possession of Survey No.1537 was removed and...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »