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.
Smt. Basanti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Cr.R.No.496/2013 19.6.2013 Shri Alok Vagrecha and Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocates for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by order dated 5.3.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T.No.22/2013 whereby the charge under Section 306 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that deceased Manish was son-in-law of the applicant, he committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance on 7.7.2011. As per prosecution, before committing suicide, the deceased left a suicidal note, in which it has been alleged that the applicant, being a Police Constable, used to interfere in the day to day family affairs of deceased through her daughter Varsha/wife of deceased and she also used to misguide her daughter due to which matrimonial dispute arose between the deceased and his wife, ...
Santosh Kumar Vs. Smt. Asha Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
F.A.No.32/2012 19/6/2013: Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging an order dated 14.10.2011 passed by IInd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in C.S.No.105-A/2011 this appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984. Both the parties filed an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. This prayer has been rejected by the impugned order and therefore, the present appeal has been filed. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Family Court impugned in this appeal goes to show that marriage in question stood already dissolved on the grounds stated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and finding the marriage to have been already dissolved by a decree passed in an earlier proceedings, learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, rejected the application. It has been held by the...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maa Vaishnav Education Society 202
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
[1]. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR I.T.A. No.169/2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Versus Maa Vaishnav Education Society, 202, Ganga Jamuna Complex, Zone-I, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal. I.T.A. No.171/2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Versus Ayushmati Education and Social Society, 202, Ganga Jamuna Complex, M.P. Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal Present: Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting C.J.Hon. Shri Justice M.A. Siddiqui ___________________________________________________________________ Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent. ___________________________________________________________________ ORDER 19/06/2013 Per Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J.As both the appeals are preferred on similar grounds before this Court, both the appeals are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, we have taken facts from I.T.A. No.169/2012.2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 09.05.2012 by the...
Kothiram Vs. Lakshminarayan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Writ Petition No.9442/2013 19.06.2013 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 21.2.2013, passed by the District Judge, Chhindwara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.10/13, affirming the order dated 3.9.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Pardhurna in Co.No.31-A/11 whereby allowing the application of the respondents, filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by issuing ad interim injunction, the petitioner has been restrained to make further construction over the disputed land. In the couRs.of arguments on merits, in view of the findings given by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court in their respective orders (Annexure P-6 and P-7) restraining the petitioner to make further construction over the disputed property and the documents filed on record, on making certain query, on which peti...
Basant Kumar Shrivas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
W.P.No.4018/2013 19.06.2013 Shri Bramhdatt Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1. Shri Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that the approval sent by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court to the State Government to grant the similar benefit to the employees absorbed in the High Court, initially appointed in the M.P.State Administrative Tribunal, at par with the employees of the High Court was considered by the State Government. It is also not in dispute that the matter was referred to the State Pay Commission and the said Commission has also approved the proposal made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. However, it is contended by learned Deputy Advocate General appearing in the case on behalf of respondent No.1 that the State Government is required to take a decision on the proposal so made and for the said purpose, at least two months' time would be needed. Keep...
Nakul Singh Raghuwanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
W.P.No.10278/2013 (Nakul Singh Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 19.06.2013 Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that they have not been permitted to participate in the recruitment process for the post of Constable. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the result of the selection has not been declared till date. It is further stated that the petitioners had approached the Additional Director General of Police (Selection and Recruitment).Police Headquarter, Bhopal but the representations were not accepted. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, on advance copy, submits that in case the petitioners file a fresh representation, it shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. In v...
Harsh Vardhan Shesha Vs. Barkatullah University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
W.P.No.10280/2013 19/06/2013 Shri Praveen Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pateriya, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 on advance notice. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking revaluation of the practical paper in the subject of PSM (Community Medicine).Petitioner appeared in the MBBS Pre Final (3rd Year) Examination in the year 2013 with Roll No.80193 and contending that his answer sheet in the subject in question as indicated hereinabove has not been valued properly, this writ petition has been filed. Under similar circumstances in the matter of revaluation of the answer sheets of the students pursuing MBBS Course, respondent/University in W.P.No.9847/2010 had made an averment to the effect that if the students concerned deposit a sum of `2,000/- with the University, the University shall get the answer sheet re-examined by the independent examiner and submit a report to this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid submission made by the University an...
The State of M.P. Vs. Mukesh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138 OF 199.APPELLANT/STATE: State of Madhya Pradesh Versus RESPONDENT: Mukesh Kumar S/o Narayan Singh, aged 25 years, Occupation student/service, R/o Koli Mohalla, Ganj, Sehore ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant/State : Ms. Savita Choudhary, Panel Lawyer For the Respondent : Ms. Kiran Mehta, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing :10. 05.2013 Date of judgment :19. 06.2013 (JUDGMENT) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16/06/1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore in Criminal Trial No.844/1996, whereby, respondent accused Mukesh was acquitted from the charges of Section 354, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, this appeal under Section 378 (iii)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the ap...
Kailash Prasad Shah Vs. Shri Irshad Bali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Conc No ::134. / 2013 Kailash Prasad Shah versus Shri Irshad Bali 19.06.2013. Shri Arvind Pathak for the applicant. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for the non- applicants. Interalia contending that an order passed on 16.7.2010, in Writ Petition No.3336/2010, is not being complied with and regular efforts to trace and find out the whereabouts of the applicants child is not being undertaken, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Writ Petition No.3336/2010 was filed by the petitioner and it was the case of the petitioner that his son is missing and the police is not taking any steps for recovering the child. Notices were issued and based on the report submitted by the Police Authorities on 16.7.2010, Writ Petition No.3336/2010 was disposed of in the following terMs. We have also perused the report dated 15.7.2010 furnished by the respondents supported by an affidavit of Mr.Anurag, SP, Singrouli and we are satisfied that the police are making seriou...
Mithlesh Giri Goswami Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
1...W.A.No.406 of 2013 Mithilesh Giri Goswami State of M.P.& ORS.19.06.2013 Shri Manot Mishra, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Kumresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 15.4.2013 in W.P.No.11853 of 2011 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the application filed by the respondents and vacated the ad interim writ granted in the matter on1.8.2011. This appeal is filed on the ground that in the matter, ad interim writ was issued on 1.8.2011 which had continued till 15.4.2013 but it was vacated on 15.4.2013. It is submitted that the appellant herein was working on the post of Revenue Sub Inspector, after his due promotion on the said post the promotion was cancelled which order was under challenge in the writ petition and if during the pendency of the writ petition appellant is reverted back, he shall suffer irreparably. It is also submitted that this appeal may be allowed. Ad interim writ may be continued til...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »