Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Shri Ram Shandilya Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.23956/2003 (O.A.No.437/1998-B) Shriram Shandilya versus The State of M.P.& another. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri D.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. ORDER (26.09.2013) This petition was initially filed as Original Application before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal, was entertained and remained pending and was transmitted to this Court after closure of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition. 2: The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk working in the office of Block Development Officer at Berasiya, District Bhopal, had approached the M.P.Administrative Tribunal, ventilating his grievance against the order dated 24.6.1998, by which the petitioner was reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk holding that the promotion made on the said post in respect of petitioner on 12.3.1996 was not proper. It was mentioned...
Bharat Vs. Ramkumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.4920/2008 Bharat and 19 others -VERSUS- Ramkumar .................................................................................................... Shri K.B. Bhatnagar, Advocate for the applicants. None for the respondent. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Passed on the 26th day of September, 2013) Applicants have challenged the order dated 5/1/08 passed by the learned C.J.M., Dindori in Complaint Case No.912/07, whereby he restored the complaint which was dismissed in absence of the complainant.2. Prosecution's case, in short, is that the respondent had lodged a complaint against the applicants for various offences. Vide order dated 3/11/2007, the learned C.J.M. registered the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 427 and 506 of the I.P.C. and notices were issued to t...
Trilokinath Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR WRIT APPEAL NO.1393 OF2006Trilokinath Agrawal, S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Aged about 56 years, R/o Civil Lines, Katni, District Katni (M.P.) . Appellant Versus 1. State of Madhya Pradesh Mineral Resources Departmental Through - its Principal Secretary, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Department of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 3 The Collector, Katni District Katni (M.P.) . Respondents Present : Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting C.J.Hon. Shri Justice Rohit Arya Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A., for the respondents. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Himanshu Mishra, counsel for Shri R.N.Swami, intervener. JUDGMENT (26.9.2013) Per Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting Chief Justice : This appeal is directed under section 2 of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, 2 W.A.No.1393/2006 Trilokinath Agrawal Vs...
Sulakshna Sharma Vs. Smt. Meeradevi Katare
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 W.P No.16352 of 2013 26.9.2013 Shri Amitabh Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. Petitioner/ objector/ non-applicant, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.13 passed by the 9th ADJ, Bhopal in MJC No.23/09, whereby her application filed under section 45 of the Evidence Act to get examine the signature of deceased Late Praveen Sharma on the alleged Will projected by the present respondent, has been dismissed.2. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on the record along with the aforesaid application and the impugned order argued that the petitioner being daughter of said Praveen Sharma, on receiving the information about filing the aforesaid case on the strength of the aforesaid projected Will, filed her objection/ written statement and challenged the signature of the deceased over the Will and stated that such Will is forged and fabricated by the responden...
Salim Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.1019/2010 Salim Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Deepak Okhade, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State. Shri A.D. Mishra, counsel for the respondent No.2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 26th day of September, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2, which is registered at Crime No.281/09 at Police Station Kotwali, Mandla by which the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 & 452 of IPC were registered against the applicant.2. Facts of the case, in short are...
Raju Dwivedi Vs. Praveen Chunni Lal Shah
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
M.A.No.1878/2011 26/9/2013 None for the appellant. Shri Gulab Sohane, Adv.for the respondent no.2. Arguments heard. This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the award dated 15.2.2011 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmens Compensation Act & Labour Judge, Satna in Claim Case No.23/10 WC Act (non fatal) has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law vide orders dated 28.9.2011 & 21.11.2012 respectively :- 1. Whether the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation was justified in not awarding the penalty though specific contention has been advanced in the application filed before him, however the appellant is entitled to get compensation along with the penalty ?. 2. Whether the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation has rightly awarded the interest as per Section 4A(3)(a) of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 ?. 3. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation by ignoring the material piece of evidence regarding the wages which the wo...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chandrakishore Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
M.A.No.2850/2012 26/9/2013 Shri Gulab Sohane, Adv.for the appellant. Shri Anil Lala, Adv.for the respondents. Case is listed for final hearing at motion stage. Arguments heard. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 11.7.2012 passed in Claim Case No.108/11 by learned MACT, Burhanpur (M.P.) by which compensation of Rs.6,43,120/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondent nos.1 and 2 for death of their son Nilesh Mishra in accident caused by truck driven by respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident has occurred in the middle of the road as the vehicle driven by the respondent no.5 dashed with the truck and drawn attention towards the spot map Ex.A/4 in which the spot of accident has been shown in the middle of the road. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the contributory negligence of the appellant. Learned counsel for the claimant on the other han...
S.B. Pare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Writ Petition No.4487/2013 25.09.2013 Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned PL for respondent -State. In view of listing the matter IA No.13180/13, an application for early hearing does not require any consideration, hence the same is disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-Bhumiswami has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- 1. By issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, to command the respondents to acquire the land bearing KhaSr.No.209/1/ka, area 0.090 hectare and area 0.004 Hectare and further be pleased to command the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner as per the market rate with 18% interest. 2. By issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, to command the respondents to pay rent and damages to the petitioner from the year 1994 when the National Highway was constructed over the land bearing KhaSr.No.209/1/ka, ar...
Kamla Bai Vs. Shriram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9882/2013 25.09.2013 Shri Rajnish Pandey, counsel for the applicant. The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 10 are present in person. The applicant Kamla Bai is also present in person, who is duly identified by her counsel. Her presence is marked. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.filed by the applicant Kamla Bai for quashing the proceedings pending before the J.M.F.C.Betul in Criminal Complaint Case No.5878/2006. Facts of the case in short are that, the applicant has prosecuted a criminal complaint against the respondents for various offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 474 and 120-B of IPC. On 25.6.2013, the parties have placed a compromise application before the trial Court, which was dismissed. The case is listed for the defence evidence at present. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a compromise took place between the parties and therefore, the applicant does not want to prosecute the present com...
Ramu Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Writ Petition No.16179/13 25.09.2013 Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv.for the State on advance notice. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing the appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- (1) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry on the mining operations on his mine of flag stone situated at KhaSr.No.58 of village Tikariya, Tahsil pawai District Panna. (2) To issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition restraining the respondents no.3& 4 from interfering with the mining operations being legally carried on by the petitioner as per the lease agreement dated 29.07.2006. (3) To command the respondents for production of records pertaining to the present case for kind perusal by Honble High Court. After arguing on the factual matrix of the matter, petitioners counsel has made...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »