Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Mayaram Chittode Vs. Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
-1- C.P.No.692/2013 25.7.2013 None for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents on advance notice. Though the matter is posted on office note for clearing certain default; however, respondents on advance notice have entered appearance. It is stated on behalf of respondents that order passed in Writ Petition No.17263/2011(s) has been complied with. Writ Petition No.17263/2011(s) was disposed of in following terMs.Records indicate that vide Annexure P-5 the petitioner herein made a claim seeking consideration of his case for grant of Krammonati after completing 24 years of service in accordance with the policies and circulars of the State Govt. However, records indicate that before a decision could be taken on a representation by the State Government petitioner has approached this Court. It is stated on behalf of respondents that the case of the petitioner for grant of second Krammonati has been considered in view of order passed in Writ Petition No.1726...
Dashrath Prasad Yadav Vs. Smt.Mahila Parwati and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
FiRs.Appeal No ::603. / 1998 Dashrath Prasad Yadav versus Smt. Mahila Parvati and another 25.07.2013. Shri Sachin Yadav for the appellant. Shri S.K.Choubey for the respondents. Challenging the order-dated 29.6.1998 passed by the District Judge, Tikamgarh granting maintenance of `1500/- to respondent No.1 wife and `1000/- to respondent No.2, a minot child, in a proceeding held under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, this appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to emphasize that the appellant is not able to maintain himself; the finding given by the learned court below is perveRs.and further contending that after assessing the monthly income of the appellant at `8000/-, a maintenance of `2500/- is granted which is on the higher side and, therefore, challenge is made to the same. That apart, it is stated that in the proceeding held under section 125 CrPC, `800/- as maintenance has already been granted, therefore, the order is unsustainable. We ha...
Mrinal Vs. Dr.Jeetendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
Civil Revision No.298/2008 25.07.2013 Mr.J.P.Shah, learned counsel for the applicants. None for the non-applicant even though served. In this revision, the applicants have challenged the validity of the order dated 28.04.2008 passed by the trial Court, by which the application preferred by the applicants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. Facts giving rise to filing of the revision briefly stated are that the non-applicant filed a suit inter-alia on the ground that he is a publisher, owner and editor of a newspaper. In the plaint it was averred that the applicants No.1 to 4 are related to each other and are also advocates. The news item that the applicants No.1 to 4 earn money by blackmailing others was published in the newspaper of the non-applicant. Thereupon, the applicants No.1 to 4, who are residents of Mhow sent a notice to non- applicant, who is resident of Burhanpur. Thereafter, the non-applicant filed a suit seeking compensation to the tu...
Smt. Sandhya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
W.P.No.11959/2013 (Smt Sandhya versus State of MP and otheRs.25.07.2013 Heard Shri Bhoopendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajmani Singroul, learned counsel for respondent no 5 on caveat, on the question of admission as well as interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.06.2013 passed by the respondent No.2, the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar whereby the order passed by the Collector, Sagar dated 29.06.2012 has been affirmed and the respondent No.5 has been appointed as Mini Aganwadi Worker of village Sakri, Gram Panchayat Sonpur Tahsil Rehli District Sagar. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector as well as the Commissioner have erred in properly appreciating the evidence inasmuch as they have ignored the fact that the respondent No.5 is not a local resident and her name appears in the voter list of village Parsaikhurd. On the basis of aforesaid submission, it is s...
Sushil Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
W.P.No.11946/2013 (S.K.Shukla versus State of MP and another) 25.07.2013 Heard Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order date 16/4/2013 has been recalled and set aside by a subsequent order passed by the Collector dated 26/6/2013 and the cases of the petitioner and others have been directed to be scrutinized in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1.and therefore the present petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the representation pending before the authorities for scrutiny of his case. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer made by the petitioner is allowed and the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up the matter before the respondent/authorities in accord...
Jitendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
W.P.No.11961/2013 (Jitendra Singh versus State of MP and another) 25.07.2013 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking to the fact that previous order passed in petitioner's case in W.P No.4254/2010 had been issued by the Principal Seat of the High Court, therefore, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction stands overruled. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order date 16/4/2013 has been recalled and set aside by a subsequent order passed by the Collector dated 26/6/2013 and the cases of the petitioner and others have been directed to be scrutinized in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1.and therefore the present petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the representation pending before the authorities for scrutiny of his case. In view of the aforesaid ...
Bhuwanlal Vs. Sushila Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.262/1998 Bhuwanlal s/o. Rammurti Soni. Vs. Sushilabai & another. Counsel for the appellant : Mr. L.D.S Baghel, Advocate. Counsel for the respondents : None. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (25.07.2013) This appeal is by the plaintiff, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law :- Whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that the plaintiff is not the legitimate son of Rammurty Soni ?..2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed a suit inter-alia on the ground that the father of the plaintiff Rammurty Soni and his mother Rambhabai got married in village Kosumghat about 30 years ago according to Hindu rites. The plaintiff 2 S . A . No 6. 2 9. 9 8 was born on 6.3.1964 from the said wedlock. However the defendant No.1 and 2 asserted that they are legally married wife and son respectively of Rammurty Soni...
Vijay Kuamr Kaushik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5972/2010 25.07.2013 Shri Vivek Rusia, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State. Shri K.K.Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2 Kashi Nath. Applicants/accused have filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C.for quashing of criminal proceeding instituted against them by Police Bhalumada district Anuppur in connection with Crime No.41/2010 which has been registered against them on the report lodged by complainant Kashinath under sections 452,494,323,506-B/34 I.P.C.In short, the facts of the case are that applicants are the Engineers of South Eastern Coalfields Limited, a Government of India Undertaking. The Company maintains quarters for the purpose of residence of their employees. Kashinath Panika, a Dumper Operator was residing in quarter no.285 New Double Story of Jamuna Colliery. On 29.1.2010, when applicants went to supervise the repair work of the quarter, there occurred an altercation between them on one sid...
Dr. H.N. Parmar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.18500/2006 Dr. H.N.Parmar. Vs State of M.P.and another. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1. None for the respondent No.2 though represented earlier. ORDER (25.7.2013) The only controveRs.involved in the present petition is whether the petitioner, who was working on the post of Technical Assistant in Bio Science of University Teaching Department of Barkatullah Univesity, Bhopal, would be treated as a Teacher and continued in the employment till he attained the age of superannuation at 62 years or not. This short question boils round only because a memo was sent by respondent No.2 seeking guidance from the State, and vide memo dated 16.7.2008, the under Secretary of the respondent No.1 has informed the Additional Director Higher Education Bhopal that the persons like petitioner are not to be treated as Teacher...
Kashinath Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9381/2013 25.07.2013 Shri K.K.Gautam, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State. Shri Vivek Rusia, Advocate for respondents No.2,3 & 4. Applicants Kashinath and Sunil Kumar are present in person. Respondents No.2 Vijay Kumar Kaushik, No.3 Rajendra Prasad Tiwari and No.4 Arun Kumar Yadav are also present in person. Applicants have filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C.aggrieved by order dated 29.1.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Kotma district Anuppur in Criminal Case No.375/2010 wherein charges have been framed against them under sections 332, 506-B and 294 of I.P.C., and also for quashing the criminal proceedings of Crime No.29/2010 registered by Police Bhalumada under sections 353,186,332,506/34 of I.P.C.against them. In short, the facts of the case are that respondents No.2,3, & 4 are the Engineers of South Eastern Coalfields Limited of Government of India Undertaking. The SECL maintains resid...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »