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.
Vinay Kumar Kedia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.682/2011 Vinay Kumar Kedia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Advin Garner and Kapil Jain, Adv. for the applicant. Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent/State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER th (Passed on 19 day of September, 2013) The applicant has moved the present revision petition against the order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhopal in Crime No.829/09 registered at Police Station, Piplani.2. Facts of the case in short are that, the applicant Vinay Kumar Kedia is declared absconded in Crime No.829/09 registered at Police Sta...
Omji Associates Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 W.P.No.15171/13 (O) 19.9.2013. Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent No.1 and 2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order bearing No.2- 4/2008/12/1 dated 12.9.2008 passed by Under Secretary of Mines and Minerals Department of respondent. In the couRs.of the arguments on admission on asking the petitioner's counsel that in view of availability of alternate remedy before the efficacious forum to challenge the impugned order by way of revision under Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 how this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India could be entertained by ignoring the jurisdiction of revisional authority, on which the petitioner's counsel instead to argue further seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file such revision with a further prayer to direct...
Awadhesh Pandey Vs. Smt. Sangita Pandey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5829/2013 19.09.2013 Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate for the applicants. None for the respondent though served. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicants by this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.have challenged the proceeding pending before the JMFC Jabalpur in M.Cr.C.No.16/2012 registered for the offence under Sections 9 and 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. After considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the case is dependent on the fact that no report from the Protection Officer was filed by the respondent in the case and the Magistrate took cognizance in the case. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed his reliance on the order of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Santoshy Gaharwar versus State., [2012(4) MPLJ 615 in which it is led that without getting report of the Protection Officer, the Magistrate could not take...
Smt. Khargobai Vs. Smt. Mankunwar Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
Writ Petition No.15276/2013 (I) 19.09.2013 Shri J.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Amit Sharma, learned PL for respondent no.3. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2013, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-II to the Court of Ist Civil Judge, Class-II, Narsinghpur, in Civil Suit No.19-A/2011, whereby application filed under Section 151 of CPC to defer recording of evidence of the petitioners plaintiffs till receiving Commissioner's Report in compliance of some early direction of the court has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, after perusing the impugned order Annexure P-4, I have found that same has been passed by the trial court under the vested discretionary jurisdiction, so also in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. In such premises, it does not require any interference under the superintendin...
Brajesh Kumar Vs. Santosh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 W.P.No.15473/2013 (I) 19.9.2013. Shri R.S.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.2013 (Ann. P.9) passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Burhanpur in Misc. Appeal No.7-A/13, affirming the order dated 18.5.2013 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Burhanpur, whereby his application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC for issuing ad-interim injunction against the respondents/ defendants has been dismissed. In the couRs.of the arguments in view of earlier decision of this Court in the matter of Pyarelal versus Nandlal reported in 1982 MPWN 27 so also in view of the provision of Section 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act and in the light of Section 52 of T.P.Act on making certain query, on which instead to argue further the counsel see...
Dhanraj Vs. Hukumchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 W.P.No.15336/2013 (I) 19.9.2013. Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P.L.for the respondent No.2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 7.11.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II Amla District Betul in C.S.No.19- A/2012, whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint in relation of some facts has been dismissed holding that proposed pleadings being matter of evidence, are not necessary to plead in the plaint. Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments perused the papers placed on record, I have not found any illegality, irregularity or anything against the propriety of law in dismissing the aforesaid application of the petitioner. Hence, the same is not required any interference under the writ jurisdiction. However, this petition is disposed of with an observation that petitioner sh...
Mohd. SalauddIn Vs. Haroon Ahmad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
Writ Petition No.15409/2013 19.09.2013 Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner- judgment debtor has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Mauganj, Rewa in Civil Execution Case No.1-A/01, whereby the warrant of arrest has been directed against the petitioner to recover the sum of the impugned decree. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as papers placed on record by referring the execution application and the impugned order said that such order has been passed without taking into consideration and complying the provision of Order 21, Rule 11 -A of CPC, according to which, mentioning the grounds in the application, on which the warrant of arrest is applied, is necessary. In continuation he said that the impugned decree was passed exparte by practicing...
Nazim Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5809/2013 19.09.2013 Shri Girish Kekre, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. None for the respondents No.4 and 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.against the order dated 12.4.2013 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.Katni, whereby the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.was dismissed. The facts of the case, in short are that, the applicant has moved a criminal complaint against the respondent Nos.4 & 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B of IPC. The trial Court after considering the documents produced by the applicant dismissed the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the applicant never visited to the Police Station, Katni to lodge an ...
Sudhir Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 W.P No.9482 o19. 9.2013 Shri Arvind Pathak, counsel for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Shri Sudesh Mishra, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Amit Sharma, PL for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ against the respondents for the following reliefs :- (a) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 do not construct/remove the power gate in the possession of petitioner from which the teak tree are growing. (b) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be further pleased to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to pay the amount of number of teak tree by calculating at the rate of market. (c ) Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deem, fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the petitioner.2. Having heard the counsel, on perusing the record, I have found that with respect ...
Subbrato Bose Vs. Smt. Sompa Bose
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 W.P.No.14560/2013 (I) 19.9.2013. Shri Sanjay Sanyhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ applicant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.2013 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in case not UR/13, whereby his application filed with the signature of the counsel without his Vakalatnama for restoration of his petition, filed under Section 13 (i-a)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was dismissed in default vide dated 3.7.2013, has been dismissed only on technical ground that the same has not been filed with Vakalatnama and signature of the petitioner. In the couRs.of the arguments on admission in response of query of the Court asking how in the lack of Vakalatnama so also the signature of the petitioner on the impugned application for restoration the same could be entertained and allowed by the trial Court, on which the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »