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.
Jageshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
W.P.No.11500/2013 (J.P.Sharma versus State of MP and otheRs.19.07.2013 Heard Shri D.R.Vishwakrma, 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's dispute filed under section 55(2) of the M.P.Cooperative Societies Act before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jabalpur has not been decided till date though it was registered on 17.01.2013 and therefore, the Joint Registrar be directed to immediately decide the same. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that the matter is pending consideration before the authority concerned but although there is a provision for filing an application for urgent hearing, the petitioner without availing the same, has directly approached this court. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for urgent hearing before ...
Smt. Sita Pahade Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
1 W.P.No.12849/2010 Smt. Sita Pahade versus State Bank of India & ORS.19.07.2013 Shri R.P.Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shroti learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents have filed I.A No.8378/2013 bringing on record the fact that subsequently, in view of the changed policy, ex-gratia payment of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been paid to the petitioner by cheque which has been duly received by her on 30.6.2013 and, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition. In view of the aforesaid, I.A No.8378/2013 is allowed and the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of by recording the aforesaid statement with liberty to the petitioner to take up fresh proceedings in case any cause of action survives. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Sushila Yadav Vs. Smt .Kusum Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
Sushila Yadav & ORS.versus Smt Kusum & ORS.Review Petition No ::563. 19. 07.2013. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Seeking review of an order passed on 6.9.2010 in M.A.No.2922/2010, this application has been. Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed on the ground that there is a delay and no application for condonation of delay is filed. As the delay has not been properly explained, the appeal was dismissed, not this application for review is filed after a period of more than 2 years and 255 days. Apart from the fact that no reason is given for the delay in the review application, review is sought for on the ground that the learned court has committed an error in dismissing the appeal and by not giving opportunity for filing an application for condonation of delay. The reason given in the application for review are not such on the basis of which the review application can be allowed, that also when there is delay of mor...
VipIn Kumar Baudh Vs. M.P. Rajya Open School
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
Writ Petition No.8205/2010. 18.7.2013 Shri K.K.Kushwaha, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned counsel for respondent. Having appeared in Higher Secondary Certificate Examination (10+2) in December, 2005 conducted by M.P.Rajya Open School, Bhopal and after repeated attempts, the petitioner could pass the examination; however, the marks- sheet issued to him wrong subjects were mentioned in place Hindi, English was mentioned. That, on 11.9.2006, petitioner submitted an application for correction of marks- sheet and submitted his original marks sheet. It is contended that on repeated requests and remindeRs.petitioner was informed by respondent that they did not receive the original marks-sheet, therefore, the corrected marks sheet could not be issued. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed this petition wherein on receiving the notice, respondent no.1 has filed the return stating therein that the corrected marks-sheet has been issued on 7.5.2011. Apparently, the corrected ma...
Radhabai Thakur Vs. Mangal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
Radhabai Thakur versus Mangal Singh F.A.No.398/97 18/07/13 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the respondent. The appeal is pending since 27/08/97. It is listed for final hearing today. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are deciding the appeal accordingly. Challenge in this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made to an order dated 31/07/97 passed in Civil Suit No.88-A/96 by the Vth Additional District Judge, Sagar dissolving the marriage between the parties after allowing an application in this regard filed by the respondent plaintiff. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13/12/86 at Tahsil Sihora, Distt. Sagar. It was the case of the plaintiff husband that immediately after a year of the marriage, the appellant wife went back to her parent's house in village Bamhori. He made various efforts for bringing her back. Initially, she said that she will come back within 8 days but wh...
Ramesh Kumar R.N.Colony Bhopal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
1 W.P No.1336/1998 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1336/1998 PETITIONER : RAMESH KUMAR Vs. RESPONDENTS : THE UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri T. S. Ruprah, Senior Counsel with Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Adv. For the respondents : Shri S. K. Rao, Senior Counsel with Shri Sanjeev Chaturvedi, Adv. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (18/07/2013) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 31.7.1995 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner who was working on the post of Branch Manager in the establishment of the respondents as well as the order dated 12.3.1996 dismissing the appeal filed by him and the order dated 14.2.1997 rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner, who was working as a Branch Manager a...
Rameshwar Yadav Vs. Pinki @ Devendra Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
Cr.A.No.791/2012 18.7.2013 Shri Satyendra K.Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Bramha Datt Singh, Government Advocate for respondent no.2-State. Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred by the victim Rameshwar Yadav, author of the FIR (Ex.P/1) and injured, under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla on 30/1/2012 in Sessions Trial No.61/2010, whereby respondent no.1 Pinki alias Devendra Kumar has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and 25(1)(1B)(b) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and material on record and, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and respondent no.1 should be punished. On the contrary, learned G.A., while making ref...
Dashrath Nagpure Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
W.P.No.11402/2013 (Dashrath Nagpure and another versus State of MP and otheRs.18.07.2013 Heard Shri J. Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioneRs.who are working in the contingency paid establishment, have filed this petition for being granted regularization in the permanent establishment on the strength of order passed by this court in W.P.No.8676/11(S) which, it is alleged, had been filed by the similarly placed employees. It is however, observed that the petitioners have filed representations before the authority which are pending decision. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioners file a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months thereafter. However, it is made ...
Jitendra Thakre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
W.P.No.11401/2013 (Ankit Shrivas and others versus State of MP and otheRs.18.07.2013 Heard Shri J. Arya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rahul Rawat, P.L.for the State on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned panel lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that a similar petition which has been registered as W.P.No.6129/2013(S) raising identical issue has already been dismissed by this Court on 15-4-2013, copy of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is produced before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon another order of the learned single Judge of this Court passed in W.P.No.4529/2013 (Smt. Sanyogita Thakur versus State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 21-3-2013 by which this Court, while dismissing the petition has made certain observations. It is observed that the order in the aforesaid case was passed on the basis of a statement/undertaking given by the counsel appearing for the State. However...
Smt.Vijay Laxmi Vs. Sharad Chandra Rajak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2013
F.A.No.148/97 18/7/2013: None appears for the appellant. Shri T.K.Modh, learned counsel for respondent. Challenge in this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made to an order dated 28.11.96 passed by the IVth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.146-A/95 by which a decree for dissolution of marriage is granted at the instance of the respondent husband and counter claim under Section 23-A has been denied. Even though the appeal is pending since 1997 none is appearing for the appellant. That being so, we have heard learned counsel for the respondent, perused the record and are deciding the matter based on the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 1992 and two children have been born out of the wedlock. However, on the ground that appellant-wife is not discharging her marital responsibility and making allegations of cruelty and har...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »