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.
Abhishek Chatterjee Vs. Pooja Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
Criminal Revision No.654/2013 30.07.2013 Shri Om Shanker Pandey & Shri R.B.Gautam, Advocates for the applicant. Shri Sardar Avtar Singh, Advocate for the non-applicant. Applicant Abhishek Chatterjee and not applicant Pooja Patel are also present before this Court. They have been identified by their counsel. Applicant Abhishek Chatterjee has filed this revision against the order dated 21.9.2012 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Jabalpur in M.J.C.No.494/2011, whereby under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned family Court has awarded Rs.2000/- per month by way of maintenance to not applicant Pooja Patel. Today, applicant and not applicant have filed compromise petition with an application to compound the dispute on the following conditions: (i) That, the non-applicant (Smt. Pooja Patel) will take Rs.2,50,000/- as entire maintenance amount in installment as detailed below from the applicant (Abhishek Chatterjee) with surety that the not applicant and her family mem...
Santram Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
W.P.No.12325/2013 (Santram Prajapati versus State of MP and otheRs.30.07.2013 None for the petitioner. Record perused. None appears for the petitioner however, it is observed that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondents/authorities on 06.07.13 against the impugned transfer order dated 20.6.2013 whereby he has been transfered from Panagar to Balaghat but no decision thereon has been passed till date. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the same. In case the petitioner files a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months thereafter. With the aforesaid liberty/observation the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge MSP....
N.K.Dwivedi Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition(S) No.3771/2005 N.K.Dwivedi Vs State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Manot K.Rajak, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. ORDER (30.07.2013) The grievance of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that he was superseded in the matter of promotion on the post of Additional Director and by order dated 17.3.2005, the respondent No.3 a junior to him was promoted on the said post. It is contended that seniors are to be considered in terms of the provisions of M.P.Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for brevity) and in case the rightful consideration of the case of the petitioner would have been done, he would not have been superseded in the matter of promotion. It is contended that only because ...
Rammoo Sahu Vs. Hira Lal Yadav and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR BEFORE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL SHARMA, J.M.A. No.2353/2003 Rammoo Sahu Versus Hira Lal Yadav and others --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Satish Shrivastava, Adv. for the appellant. Shri Brijesh Mishra, Adv. for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (30/07/2013) This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 14.10.2003 dismissing the claim of appellant/claimant filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident allegedly caused by the Tractor run by respondent no.1 Hira Lal Yadav and owned by respondent no.2 Bhagirath Prasad Prajapati and insured with respondent no.3 Insurance Company.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.3.2002, appellant was travelling in an A...
Sujeet Kumar Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
W.P.12771/2013 (S.K.Thakur versus State of M.P.& otheRs.30.07.2013 Shri V.P.Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.07.2013 by which the petitioner, who is a Panchayat Secretary has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Manegaon, Janpad Panchayat Narayanganj to Gutas, Janpad Panchayat, Narayanganj. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that infact the petitioner has been subjected to transfer on account of false complaints and on a letter being issued by the local M.L.A.dated 24.05.2013 Annexure P/4 without looking into the fact that the Gram Panchayat concerned has passed a resolution in his favour and that the local M.L.A.has withdrawn his previous letter by subsequent letter dated 12.07.2013. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on administrative grounds. ...
Virendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Kamlesh Namdeo
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.775/2009 Virendra Kumar Jain Vs. Kamlesh Namdeo (Dead) through Legal Representative. Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Neeraj Vegad. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (30.07.2013) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/landlord, who has lost in both the Courts. A Bench of this Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit ?.2. Whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to get suit premises vacated even though the provisions of M.P. Accommodation and Control Act, 1961 are not applicable ?.. Today during the course of hearing, the following substantial question of law is framed :2. S . A . No 7. 5 0. 0 9 Whether the notice Ex.P/3 dated 29 t h January, 2007 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by which the tenancy of the defendant...
In Reference Vs. Shri C.P. Bhatt [Advocate]
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
1 Con.Cr. No.6/2012 30/7/2013: Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant. Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the not applicants. On a complaint made and a reference issued by the Executive Magistrate, Tarana, District Ujjain this complaint has been registered under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On going through the record it is seen that complaint was directly sent by the Executive Magistrate to the Registrar of the Court and on recommendation of the Deputy Registrar, the complaint has been registered. Shri Parag Chaturvedi invites our attention to Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read along with High Court of M.P.Contempt of Court Proceedings, 1980 and says that in the present case neither the question is referred through the Advocate General not is any preliminary enquiry held before registration of the complaint. It is emphasized by him that the complaint was with regard to certain incident that took place in the office of Exe...
Umakant Raghuwanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
W.P.12360/2013 (U.K.Raghuwanshi and others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.30.07.2013 Shri S. Rathuwanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition stating that though they have successfully cleared the examination conducted for the appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III and possess qualification of D.Ed. as prescribed by the rules, they are being wrongly denied appointment on the ground that they have obtained less marks in the qualifying higher secondary and other examinations. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.it is observed that the selection has to be conducted by the authorities in accordance with the rules and the case and claim of each candidate is to be examined by the authorities in accordance with the rules. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondents/authorit...
Govind Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1750/2006 30.07.2013 Shri Hemant Namdeo, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. Heard finally. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.05.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.No.47/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 354 of I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I.for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he has to suffer further R.I.for one month. The facts, in short are that on 26.11.2005, at about 7 O'Clock in the evening, when prosecutrix went to the field, where her house, to answer the natural call, appellant caught hold of her hand and pressed her breast and tried to undressed her. On making hue and cry, appellant fled away from the spot. Prosecutrix (P.W.-1) narrated the story to her mother Heerabai (P.W.-3) and Ramrani (P.W.-4) and thereafter lodged the FIR at P.S.Moti...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhaniram Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
Cr.A.No.264/2010 30.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State. Complainant Manisha Sharma, identified by her counsel Shri Deepak Tiwari, is present in person. Respondent Nos.1 to 4, identified by Shri Sanjay Soni, Advocate, are present in person. Heard on I.A.No.13950/12, which is an application preferred on behalf of the complainant Manisha, wife of respondent no.2 Rajkumar, for compounding the offences. The offences under Section 307, 307/34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.) are not compoundable. The application, therefore, stands dismissed. With consent, heard on the question of admission. This appeal has been preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31/3/09 passed by Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.49/2006, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 307 or 307/34 and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »