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.
Terjam Choudhary Vs. Dwarika Prasad Jayaswal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Writ Petition No.9117/2013 19.06.2013 Shri S.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners judgment debtors have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 7.3.2013, (Ann. P-9) and the order dated 19.3.2013, (Ann. P-11) passed by the Vth Judge Class-II, Katni in Civil Execution Case No.87- A/06, whereby warrant of possession of the disputed property has been directed against the present petitioners in view of the decree passed in Co.No.87-A /10, (Ann. P/1) by the aforesaid order (Annexure P-9).while application of the petitioners filed under Section 47 of CPC to modify the aforesaid decree has been dismissed by the aforesaid subsequent order, (Ann. P-11).Having heard the counsel at length on admission, I have perused the papers placed on record including the aforesaid decree and the impugned ordeRs.It is apparent fact on record that the aforesaid judgment and decree (An...
Pramod Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Pramod Kumar Jain versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No ::2053. 19. 06.2013. Petitioner in person. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent/State. Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Shri Satyendra Jyotishi, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order passed by respondents refusing to grant exemption from payment of tuition fees in the matter of education of petitioner's daughter, namely Ku. Nayansi Jain. Petitioner claims to be a resident of district Panna and working in the establishment of the State Government. It is stated that petitioner and his wife have adopted the Parivar Kalyan Yojya formulated by the State Government and have undergone the sterilization operation and are, therefore, green card holders in accordance to the policy of the state Government. Documents in support thereof are filed as Annexure P-1 and P-2. Petitioner's daughter participated in the Pre-Engineering-...
Sukhdeo Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
1 Cr.A. No.844 /2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.844/2003 APPELLANT: Sukhdeo S/o Anjulal Katiya, Aged about 35 years, R/o Dodasemar Koltidhana, P.S. Nawegaon, District Chhindwara Versus RESPONDENT: The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Ku. Savita Chaudhary, Learned Counsel For the Respondent/State : Shri Amit Pandey Learned Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing :25. 04.2013 Date of judgment:19. 06.2013 Per: Subhash Kakade, J.(JUDGMENT) The convicted appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.03.2003 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No.176/2001 has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, c...
Hari Shankar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Writ Petition No.10343/2013 19.06.2013 Shri Prashant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. Ganguli, learned PL for respondents. Looking to the question involved in this petition, instead to hear this petition only on the question of admission with the consent of the parties, the same is heard on merits. The parties are heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay bills regularly without any condition of procurement of not from Mining Department with further prayer to direct such respondents not to deduct the amount of royalty from the running and final bills of the petitioner. In addition to it, the prayer to direct the respondents to refund all the amount, if illegally deducted and detained under the head of royalty of minerals consumed is also made. After taking me through the papers placed on record by referring the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the Division...
Smt. Booti Bai Vs. Branch Manager State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Civil Revision No.429/2010 Smt.Booti Bai VERSUS Branch Manager, SBI and others --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri H.S.Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 25th day of June, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 20.5.2010 passed by the District Judge, Anuppur in Misc. Appeal No.58/2009, whereby the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Anuppur in Succession Case No.21/2009 in which a succession certificate was issued in favour of the respondent No.3, whereas, the application of the applicant was dismissed.2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent No.3 Ramkumar has moved an application under section 372 of Indian Successi...
Smt. Urmila Bayi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Writ Petition No.10395/2013 19.06.2013 Shri B.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. Ganguli, learned PL for respondent Nos.1 to 3. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ directing the respondent No.4 till the compliance the order dated 27.2.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.13165/2012, (Ann. P-5) not to take possession of the disputed land from the petitioner. In the couRs.of arguments, I am apprised by the petitioner's counsel that vide order dated 27.2.2013 passed by this court in W.P.No.13165/2012, the petitioner has filed his representation, (Ann. P-6) in the office of authority of respondent No.2 on dated 15.3.2013. Since the date of filing such representation till today the same has not been considered and decided by such authority. In such premises, instead to admit or issue any notice to the other side, so also without expressing any opinion...
Komal Singh Vs. Sahab Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Writ Petition No.9400/2013 19.06.2013 Shri Nitin Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 24.4.2013, passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Pipariya in Co.No.14-A/ 11, (old No.3-A/11) filed by the petitioners against the respondents whereby application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, (Ann. P-3) has been dismissed. In the couRs.of arguments on admission in response of some query based on available circumstances and the status of the impugned suit that the same is fixed for final arguments, instead to argue further, petitioneRs.counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise the grounds and the questions raised in this petition subject to final judgment and decree of the trial court, on arising the occasion in duly constituted appeal. Considering the aforesaid prayer, without expressing...
Surya Narayan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
1 M. Cr.C.No.1805/13. 19.6.2013. Shri S.C.Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned P.L.for the respondents/ State. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner has preferred this 4th repeat petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.40/10, registered at P.S.Prathivipur District Tikamgarh for the offence of Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 294 and 506-B of IPC against him and other co-accused. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments on admission on perusing the record, I have found that fiRs.application of the applicant under the same provision was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.8.2010, while his second application in this regard was dismissed on merits vide order dated 21.10.2011 and thereafter again this Court was approached by the applicant under the same provision and such application was dismissed, taking into considera...
M/S Veer Sing and Company Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Writ Petition No.10397/2013 19.06.2013 Shri Rajnish Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. Ganguli, learned PL for respondents. Looking to the question involved in this petition, instead to hear this petition only on the question of admission with the consent of the parties, the same is heard on merits. The parties are heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay bills regularly without any condition of procurement of not from Mining Department with further prayer to direct such respondents not to deduct the amount of royalty from the running and final bills of the petitioner. In addition to it, the prayer to direct the respondents to refund all the amount, if illegally deducted and detained under the head of royalty of minerals consumed is also made. After taking me through the papers placed on record by referring the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Division...
Sheetal Vs. Dault
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Second Appeal No.170/2008 Second Appeal No.170/2008 19.6.2013 Shri Z.M.Shah, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. The appellant has moved a civil suit No.179-A/ 2004 for claiming his ancestral property, which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 12.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Class I, Bina. FiRs.Appeal No.3-A/2007 was also dismissed by the learned Additional Judge to FiRs.Additional District Judge, Khurai vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2007. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the appellant/ plaintiff has prosecuted the present second appeal. The plaintiff has prosecuted a civil suit before the trial Court that the land shown in para 1 of the plaint was of one Heera, father of Nathua. After death of the deceased Heera, the land was mutated in the name of Nathua. In the year 1996-97, some cheating was done and name of Manbai was also added in the entries of properties alongwith Nathua. Some land was transferred to Ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »