Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
B.K. Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13642/2013 (B.K.Tripathi versus State of MP and otheRs.14.08.2013 Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. I.A.No.11231/13 which is an application for amendment by way of which the petitioner seeks permission to bring on record the order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the respondents/authorities during the pendency of this petition whereby the order transferring the petitioner from Panna to Umaria has been cancelled and the petitioner has been directed to report back at Panna. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent No.4 had been transferred by order dated 17.07.2013 subsequent to which the respondents/authorities had passed an order dated 26.07.2013 cancelling the order of transfer of the respondent No.4 against which the petitioner has filed the present petition but without awaiting the decision herein the respondents/authorities have not passed order dated 01....
Hajari Panika Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Criminal Appeal No.401/2013 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri V.K.Lakhera, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.Deb, Government Advocate for the respondent-State. Heard on I.A.No.17759/13, which is fiRs.application, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Appellant Haz`ari Panika has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.) for committing the murder of Jagat Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and looking to the fact that the appellant is a fiRs.offender, benefit of bail may be extended to him. A bare perusal of record reveals that Phoolwati (PW1).who is widow of Jagat Singh had testified in her evidence that it was stated by Jagat Singh that he was beaten by Shankar, appellant and Sandeep. Similarly, Pramod Singh (PW5) also deposed that he was informed by Jagat that he was assaulted by the appellant with a Gandasa. Looking to the facts and circu...
Smt. Archna Shukla Vs. Prabhanshu Kamal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Conc. No. 829 Of 2011 14.8.2013 Shri Manoj Chansoria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order passed in W.P. No. 2450/2010 (S), present contempt petition has been filed. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada and another . The decision in Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada (supra) travelled to Supreme Court and the entire case was reopened by Supreme Court and the matter was remanded back to this Court whereon the same was reconsidered and decided on 4.4.2012 in the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit . State of M.P. (W.P. No. 2742/2012) along with other 80 writ petitions. That, being so petitioner will have to seek benefit in acc...
Zamir Bahadur Vs. TahsIn Bahadur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Writ Petition No. 1408 Of 2013 14.8.2013 Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Certificate dated 2.12.2011, certifying the fact that over Nazul Sheet No. 23 C, Plot No. 1/26 area 50 x 100 = 500 sq.ft. Buses of one Traels and Vikas Travels are stationed. As also the repair works are carried out therefrom, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Mandla, in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is being questioned in this petition. Petitioner, as apparent from the cause title is a partner of a transport Company : M/s Hardev Motor Transport Corporation, when called upon as to under which provision of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or any other law being in force would permit the cancellation of a certificate of fact as it exist, learned counsel for the petitioner is at loss to state such law. If a person including the juristic person, is carrying ...
Smt. Archna Singh Vs. Dilip Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 MCC No.979 o14. 8.2013 Shri Mahendra Dubey, counsel for the applicant. Heard on the question of admission. ORDER (ORAL) 1. The applicant/ wife has filed this petition under section 24 of the CPC for transferring the HMA No.66-A/13 pending in the Court of District Judge, Damoh filed by the respondent under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, from such Court to some court of District Judge, District Sagar.2. As per averments of the petition, on account of some matrimonial dispute between the applicant and the respondent, under compulsion, the applicant is residing with her parental family at Sagar and in her parental family, no competent male member is available to come with her to attend the aforesaid case at Damoh and she is also under apprehension of some unhappy incident by the respondent at Damoh because he is a practicing lawyer of Damoh. In such premises, she has also apprehension that she could not contest the matter properly at Damoh because no competent Advocate is availabl...
Praphulla Bharti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Cr.R.No.1621/2011 14.8.2013 Shri Mukesh Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has challenged the order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the learned FiRs.Aditionsl Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2010 whereby the appeal was dismissed and the order about the vehicle passed in judgment dated 19.11.2010 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni in Criminal Case No.2338/2007 was confirmed. The prosecution's case in short is that a trial for offence punishable under Section 403 of I.P.C was initiated against the applicant because an unregistered vehicle was found with him. The single Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.1143/2009 vide order dated 22.9.2009 directed that the vehicle may be given on supurdginama to the applicant with certain conditions but, the applicant did not obtain the vehicle from the trial Court. However, after conclusion of the trial, the trial Court directed in the judgment itself that the vehicle be given ...
Kamlesh Sonare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13315/2013 Kamlesh Sonare vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 14.08.2013 Heard Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 23.7.2013 whereby he has been transferred from Bhopal to Rewa. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's wife is seriously ill and is undergoing treatment at Bhopal. It is also submitted that the petitioner is being subjected to transfer in the mid session which is contrary to the transfer policy of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed representations, Annexure P-3, before the respondent authorities but no decision thereon has been taken till date. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropria...
Executive Engineer Raipur Vs. M/S Anil Kumar Grover
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
MCC No.960/13 14.8.2013 Shri Dileshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. This case is listed today for appropriate order on the question of maintainability. As per Office note, the present petition has been filed on behalf of the applicants for restoration/readmission of the Arbitration Appeal No.5/10, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 10.12.2012 and before filing the present petition for restoration, on behalf of the same applicants for the same relief, the MCC No.310/13 was also filed on dated 1.3.2013. So in such premises, for restoration of the same Arbitration Appeal two different petitions could not be entertained. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, on making certain query from the applicants counsel on which he said that, he did not aware about the aforesaid earlier petition for restoration. Repeatedly on asking from the counsel whether he is ready to withdraw the same with liberty to press aforesaid earlier petition (MCC No.310/10) even ...
Ramsharan Verma Vs. Mst. Muturi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
C.R No.309 o14. 8.2013 Shri M.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. He is heard on the question of admission. The applicant/defendant/judgment debtor has filed this revision under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 19.6.2013, passed by IInd Civil Judge Class-II Waidhan District Singrauli in Execution Case No.27A/80x10, whereby under execution of the decree passed in Civil Original Suit No.27-A/09 vide dated 29.1.2010, some application filed on behalf of applicant/judgment debtor under Section 47 of CPC on dated 14.4.2013, has been dismissed. Applicants counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with the averments of the revision memo and the impugned order argued that in the lack of proper measurement and map of the disputed place, the warrant of possession which has been/which is issued by the executing Court against the applicant could not be executed. He further said that without considering his objection raised in the aforesaid a...
Dr. Ramakant Joshi Vs. Shri Prabhanshu Kamal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Conc. No. 831 Of 2011 14.8.2013 Shri Manoj Chansoria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Swapnil Sohgaura, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order passed in W.P. No. 6462/2010 (S), present contempt petition has been filed. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada and another . The decision in Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada (supra) travelled to Supreme Court and the entire case was reopened by Supreme Court and the matter was remanded back to this Court whereon the same was reconsidered and decided on 4.4.2012 in the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit . State of M.P. (W.P. No. 2742/2012) along with other 80 writ petitions. That, being so petitioner will have to seek be...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »