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.
Bhaiji Prasad Keer Vs. M.P. Krishi Vipanan Board Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13393/2013 Bhaiji Prasad Keer vs. M.P. Krishi Vipnan Board & ORS.1 14.08.2013 Heard Shri T.S.Ruprah, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Harpreet Ruprah for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by communication dated 19.7.2013, Annexure P-3, by which the respondent no.3 has directed respondent no.4 to cancel the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Inspector in the Krishi Upaj Mandi on account of the fact that after 8.1.2003 reservation for Keer, Meena and Pardhi in direct recruitment has been prohibited. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or giving him an opportunity to defend his case and, therefore, it be quashed. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the impugned order dated 19.7.2013, Annexure P-3, is not an order of can...
Daryav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Criminal Revision No.2032/2011 14.08.2013 Shri K.N.Fakhruddin, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants by this revision have challenged the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Astha District Sehore in ST No.231/2011 whereby the charge of offence under Section 307/34 is framed against the applicants along with other charges. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 6.7.2011 the applicants assaulted the victim Lalji by various weapons. The victim sustained as many as eight injuries and he was referred to the District Hospital Sehore and thereafter he was referred to the Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned counsel for the applicants wants to establish that as per the allegation the applicants assaulted the victim Lalji by sticks and in the statement of...
Hakam Singh Vs. Maharaj Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Cr.A.No.1073/2012 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Shivraj Kushwaha, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent no.4-State. Heard on I.A.No.12763/2012, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this appeal. As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 11 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.2.2012 passed by II Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.357/2010, whereby respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Marriage of Kapasbai (since deceased) was solemnized w...
Shadab Khan @ Dulare Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1736/2012 14.08.2013 Ku. Anugrah Bharat, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned PL for respondent-State. Heard on the question of maintainability of this petition. ORDER (Oral) The applicants of Cr.A.No.248/2012 dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 27.1.2012 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for recalling such order dated 27.1.2012 and hear such appeal on merits again. Applicants' counsel after taking me through the aforesaid order dated 27.1.2012, so also some of the papers from the record of aforesaid Cr.A.No.248/2012 alongwith the averments of the petition said that due to some misunderstanding the appeal was withdrawn by the counsel on the aforesaid date while the appellants wanted on such date and subsequent to that also to prosecute the aforesaid appeal on merits and prayed to recall the aforesaid order of the second appeal by allowing this petition. So far the question of maintainability of this petition is concerned, she...
Hitkarini College of Engineering and Technology (Mca College) Vs. the ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Hitkarini College of Engineering & Technology versus State of M.P.& OtheRs.Writ Petition No ::15608. 14. 08.2013. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Saurav Sundar, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Government Advocate for the State. Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Advocate submits that due to certain judgments rendered by the Supreme Court recently, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a separate petition, if occasion so arises, on future date. Petition is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) (SMT. VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE JUDGE ss/-...
Smt.Shakun Bai Vs. Sundar Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.921/2009 Smt. Shakun Bai w/o. Chandu Tak & 3 Others. Vs. Sunder Bai Counsel for the appellants : Mr. H.S. Verma, Adv. Counsel for the respondent No.2 : Mrs. Amrit Ruprah, Adv. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (13.08.2013) This appeal is by the plaintiffs, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law :- Whether the reason assigned in para 4 of the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the first appeal?. If yes, whether learned First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law in dismissing the appeal as barred by time ?..2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking relief of 2 S . A . No 2. 1 0. 0 9 declaration that they are entitled to receive pensionary benefits of deceased Chandulal. The plaintiffs also sought for permanent in...
Keshav Singh Vs. Smt. Shivkumari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4468/2012. 13.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri B.D.Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 14/02/12 passed by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Bhopal in R.T.No.842/2004, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 467 & 471 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).The case of applicant is that he is the owner of House No.140, Rajendra Nagar Colony Chandbad, Bhopal and the respondents were tenants of a 10x10 feet portion of the aforesaid house on the monthly rent of Rs.200/-. On 28/07/1997 the applicant made a complaint in the court of JMFC Bhopal that with intention to illegally transfer his entire house, the respondents forged a receipt bearing his fake signature. As per the said receipt dated 26/01/1987 the entire house admea...
Dr. Ramlala Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.17891/2012 Dr. Ramlala Shukla and others. Vs. State of M.P. and others. Writ Petition No.17382/2012 Prantiya Shaskiya Mahavidyalayeen Pradhyapak Sangh, Bhopal. Vs. The State of M.P. and others. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri R.K. Tripathi, Advocate for petitioners. Shri R.D. Jain, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1. Shri Dharmendra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. None for respondent No.2. ....(in W.P.No.17891/2012) Shri L.C. Patne, Advocate and Shri Abhay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.D. Jain, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Dharmendra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. None for respondent No.4. ....(in W.P.No.17382/2012) 2 ORDER (20.8.2013) These two wr...
Smt. Bhavana and ors Vs. Ravi Shankar and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
1 MCC No.996 o13. 8.2013 Shri Narendra Sharma, counsel for the applicants. This petition filed under section 24 of the CPC is pending to consider the question of admission and stay application since the year 2001 and there is an interim stay vide order dated 11.7.03 whereby the further proceedings of Claim Case No.22/01 filed by the applicants and respondent No.4 and 5 regarding compensation of vehicular death of Satyendra Singh pending in the court of Ist MACT Mandla has been stayed. Heard on the question of admission. ORDER (ORAL) 1. The applicants/ wife and daughter of deceased Satyendra Singh have filed this petition under section 24 of the CPC for transferring the MACC No.22/01 filed by them along with respondent No.4 and 5, the parents of the deceased, pending in the Court of Ist MACT, Mandla from such tribunal to some other competent tribunal of district Seoni.2. As per averments of the petition, before death of said Satyendra Singh, the applicants were residing jointly with res...
Mst.Sushila Devi and anr. Vs. Balram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.789/1999 Mst. Sushila Devi w/o. Jamuna Kalar. Vs. Balram s/o. Indramani Jaiswal & 11 Others. Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate Counsel for the respondents : None. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (13.08.2013) This appeal is by the plaintiffs, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law :- Whether plaintiff Durgawati, being daughter of deceased Krishna Kumar, has a right of inheritance even if she is daughter from void marriage ?..2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff No.2 is the grand-daughter of defendant No.1. The Defendants No.2 and 3 are brothers of defendant No.1, whereas the defendants No.4 to 11 are uncles of defendant No.1. The plaintiff No.1 got married at 2 S . A . No 8. 9 9. 9 9 the age of 10 years with one Jamuna Prasad in the year 1977. After death of Jamuna Prasad, she got m...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »