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.
Hemraj Vs. Smt.imrati Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
1 Hemraj Nayak versus Smt. Imartibai F.A.No.407/98 25/07/13 Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent even though served and represented by counsel. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is filed by the appellant husband challenging the judgment and decree dated 14/07/98 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, East Nimad, District Khandwa dismissing an application filed by the appellant husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage. Facts in brief goes to show that when the proceedings were initiated before the trial Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the year 1998, the parties were already married for a period of 14 yeaRs.It was the case of the appellant husband before the trial Court that in the year 1986, the respondent wife has without any justification and of her own deserted him and has gone to stay with her father. It was pointed out that at the time of filin...
Sarla Bai Vs. Mewalal Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
1 Sarlabai versus Mewalal F.A.No.110/99 25/07/13 Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent even though served and represented by counsel. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to a judgment and decree dated 2/02/99 passed by the 3rd Additional Distt. Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.42-A/97 by which suit for dissolution of the marriage filed by the respondent husband has been allowed. Appellant herein who is the wife has come out with a case that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per the Hindu rites on 22/04/92. It was the case of the respondent husband before the trial Court that ever since, the marriage was solemnized, the appellant wife started harassing the respondent husband on small and petty matters and used to quarrel with him. He, therefore filed the suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground that the appellant wife is not discharging her marital responsibility. She is in...
Ramprasad Soni Vs. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
1 W.P No.12235/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.12235/2005 PETITIONER : RAM PRASAD SONI Vs. RESPONDENTS : AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri R. N. Shukla, Sr. Counsel with Shri R. B. Tiwari, Advocate. For respondent No.3 : Shri Akash Choudhary, Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (25/07/2013) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.8.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Khandwa under the Payment of Wages Act, in Case No.11/95 and the order passed by the Member Judge, Industrial Court, Indore on 7.7.2005.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, before the competent authority stating that the respondents had not paid him arrears of Variable Dearness Allowance while making pay...
Sanjay Sondhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
W.P.No.12092/2013 (Sanjay Sondhiya versus State of MP and otheRs.25.07.2013 Heard Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that his application for compassionate appointment filed on 21.05.2008 is not being considered and decided by the authority. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's father died on 20.04.2008 while working as Assistant Grade III in the establishment of the respondents and thereafter the petitioner filed an application seeking compassionate appointment on 21.05.2008 and subsequent reminders on 18.06.2010 and 27.10.2010 but inspite of recommendations by the respondents No.2 and 3 no decision thereon has been taken by the concerned authority till date and therefore, appropriate directions in this regard be issued. Shri Piyush Jain, learned P.L.for the State appearing on advance copy submits that the applica...
Manesh Namdev Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
W.P.No.12011/2013 Manesh Namdeo vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 25.07.2013 Heard Shri N.P.Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner has not been considered for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-3 on the ground that he has got less than 50% marks in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination which is a necessary requisite eligibility qualification. Prima Facie it appears that the act of the respondents is in accordance with the rules. However, as several other issues have been raised by the petitioner, without entering into the merits of the case or making any comments upon the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities by filing a representation alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petiti...
Kalika Prasad Dangi Vs. Manila Sarita Dangi and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-2013
F.A.No.602/98 25/7/2013: Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents even though served. Challenging an order dated 10.1.98 passed by the District Judge, Tikamgarh in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.16/96 granting a maintenance of Rs.600/- per month to respondent No.1-wife, Rs.400/- per month to respondent No.2 child and further directing for payment of Rs.5000/- for marriage of respondent No.2 in a fixed deposit. Exercising the powers under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, this appeal has been filed. Respondent No.1 claimed a maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month and on the basis of the material that came on record and after analysis of the same, the impugned action has been taken. Shri Nilesh Kotecha, referred to the documents and material available on record, the evidence of the parties and submitted that the maintenance granted and finding recorded with regard to inability to respondent to maintain herself is a pe...
Ku. Deeksha Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
Misc. Civil Case No.611/2013 (Ku. Deeksha Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.24.07.2013 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. The present application had been filed for restoration of W.P.No.6424/2013(S).The said application was allowed restoring the aforesaid writ petition by order dated 24.06.2013, however while passing the said order, number of writ petition has wrongly been mentioned as W.P.No.6434/2013 (S) instead of W.P.No.6424/2013(S).The order is accordingly modified and corrected and in place of W.P.No.6434/2013 (S) it be not read as W.P.No.6424/2013(S).Registry is directed to make a note in the margin of the order dated 24.06.2013 passed in MCC No.611/2013 regarding the aforesaid correction and after necessary correction rescan the order dated 24.06.2013 and certified copy of the scanned copy be supplied as and when applied for. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Krishna Kumar Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
1 WP No.12508/13 24.07.2013. Shri Mukesh Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl.Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 5 on advance notice. The petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (a) That, this Honble Court may kindly direct the respondents to take appropriate action towards removing encroachment and to construct toilet and to provide playground in Government Primary School, Bamuri, District-Panna; (b) Any other relief/reliefs which this Honble Court may kindly deem fit and proper. Case of the petitioner is that adjoining to the Government Primary School, Bamuri, a Government land is lying vacant which is being used by the students for playing, etc.In the school, near about 250 students are studying who require the land for sports activity. The School moved an application to the Collector, Panna for allotment of the land and for removal of the encroachment of the neighbourers from the land. The Collector had sent the application dated 23 rd Dec...
Chandrashekhar Vs. Smt. Anita
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8319/2013 24/07/2013 Shri C.L.Sethi, counsel for the applicant. Heard. Applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 14.3.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Khandwa in Criminal Revision No.23/2013 whereby the order dated 2.2.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class Khandwa in Criminal Case No.222/2012 was affirmed. In short the facts of the case are that in a proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C.after examination of respondents No.2 and 3 as witnesses when respondent No.1 Smt. Anita appeared as a witness, she produced receipts of fees of children viz. Durgesh and Divya alongwith an application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since these receipts were not produced earlier, the witnesses viz. Durgesh and Divya ought to have been recalled for further examination. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant...
Begum Saleha Sultan Vs. Safia Education Society
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-2013
F.A.No.1129/2011 24/07/2013 Shri Rohit Arya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Heard on I.A.No.8190/2013, an application filed for earlier hearing of the appeal. Placing reliance on the liberty granted to the appellant on 8.8.2012 for mentioning the case for earlier hearing, learned counsel prays for early hearing in the matter but considering the fact that this appeal is of the year 2011 and presently in the light of the directions given by the Supreme Court, the appeals of more than 10 years old are being listed on priority basis, it may not be possible for early hearing of this appeal. List I.A.No.8190/2013 for consideration in the month October, 2013. List along with F.A.No.933/2011 for analogous hearing. (Rajendra Menon) (Mrs.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge nd...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »