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.
Smt. Neelu Agrawal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
MCC No.1141/2013 19.09.2013 Shri K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Virendra Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri K.K.Gautam, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Heard. This petitioner has filed this petition for restoration of W.P.No.2681/2004, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 22.8.2013. Having heard, perused the petition. As per averments of it, due to mistake of the office of counsel of the petitioner, he could not appear before the court on the aforesaid date when the case was taken up for hearing. Consequently the same was dismissed in the aforesaid manner. Keeping in view the principle that litigant should not suffer because of mistake or the fault of his counsel or his office, as laid down in the matter of Rafiq and another versus Munshilal and another reported in AIR 198.SC 1400.also keeping in view that on the aforesaid date the counsel of the respondents were present before the court, thus, in order to compe...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Virendra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3030/2009 19.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. Shri Shivam Singh, Advocate for the respondents. Heard on I.A.No.8798/09 for condonation of delay in preferring this application for leave to appeal. As per office note, the application is barred by 147 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and delay in filing the application is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 5/7/2008 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen, in Sessions Trial No.79/1999, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12/12/1998, being armed with deadly weapons, respondents constituted an un-lawful assembly and i...
Karim Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.9203/2013 19.09.2013 Shri Durgesh Singrore, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on admission. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.for getting the vehicle bearing registration not MP05-G-6338 on Supardiginama. Facts of the case, in short, are that the vehicle in question was seized by the Police under the Provisions of Section 11(5) of M.P.Govansh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and not confiscation proceeding is pending before District Magistrate, Betul. Applicant has moved an application before the JMFC Bainsdehi District Betul to get the vehicle on Supardginama. The application was dismissed vide order dated 24/5/13. A revision was also moved but the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Betul vide order dated 11/6/13 dismissed the revision filed by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle could be given on Supa...
Mohd. Bahar Vs. Mohd. Safi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
Writ Petition No.15949/2013 (I) 19.09.2013 Shri P.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Shri Amit Sharma, learned PL for respondent no.8. Heard. The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2013, passed by IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-I, Sidhi in Co.No.86-A/13, whereby their objection taken in examination in chief of the defendant -witness Anup Singh, on marking exhibit on some sale deed has been overruled and the respondents- defendants were permitted to mark exhibit on such documents as Ex. D-1. In the couRs.of arguments, in the available circumstances on asking the counsel that what error has been committed by the trial court in permitting the respondent to mark the exhibit on the aforesaid sale deed as exhibit D-1 in the deposition of aforesaid witness of Anup Singh when apparently as alleged he is an attesting witness of the exec...
Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Vs. Sushil Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 W.P No.18962 o19. 9.2013 Shri Sachin Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satyam Agarwal, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Amit Sharma, PL for respondent No.4. Having heard, in the available circumstances, instead to hear only on the question of admission, with the consent of the parties, the same is also heard for final disposal.2. Petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.11 passed by the II ADJ , Astha in COS No.10-A/09 whereby his right to examine its witness Dasrath Singh Rajput, has been closed and pursuant to that the case has been directed to be placed for recording the evidence of respondents No.1 to 3.3. Mere perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that in order to secure presence of witness Dasrath Singh Rajput, some process was submitted on behalf of the petitioner. Pursuant to that, summons was also issued to such witness but the same was not received back either served or unserved and without considering such ...
Omkar Shukla Vs. Badri Prasad Singh Bargahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.M.Cr.C.No.9114/2013 Omkar Shukla VERSUS Badri Prasad Singh Bargahi & Others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Mrigendra Singh, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 20th day of September, 2013) The applicant has challenged the order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in criminal revision No.39/2011, whereby the order dated 10.1.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Churahat, District Sidhi in criminal case No.12/2011 was confirmed by which the cognizance of offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 of IPC was taken by the learned JMFC against the applicant.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the respondent No.1 has moved a criminal compla...
Lalkhan Lal Vs. Smt. Kaushilya Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
FiRs.Appeal No ::489. / 2001 Lakhanlal versus Smt. Kaushilya Sahu 19.09.2013. None appears for the parties. Records indicate that continuously from 18.2.2006, none is appearing for the parties. Matter was listed in the Lok Adalat also, on various dates, and SPC was directed to be issued. Taking note of all these factors when case was listed on 22.8.2013, SPC was directed to be issued. Records indicate that SPC was issued and the case is listed today. Inspite thereof, none is appearing. It seems that parties are no more interested in the matter. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. ( RAJENDRA MENo.) ( SMT. VIMLA JAIN ) JUDGE JUDGE Aks/-...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 W.P.No.15915/2013 (o) 19.9.2013. Shri G.S.Ahluwaliya, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without challenging any order of the appellate Court only for appropriate direction to the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Khurai District Sagar to take an endeavor to expedite the hearing of Civil Appeal No.5-A/13 and decide the same on some early date with some time bound schedule. Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments, in the available circumstances instead to admit or issue any notice to the other side, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file appropriate application for early hearing of the aforesaid appeal before the Appellate Court and pursuant to it such Court is directed that on filing such application the same shall be considered in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Law, so also keeping in vie...
Rama @ Manorama Shukla Vs. Ramakant
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
1 M.Cr.C. No.11520 of 2009 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J Misc. Criminal Case No.11520/2009 Rama @ Manorama Shukla. -Vs- Ramakant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.B.Shrivastava, Advocate with applicant. Shri Subodh Kathar, Advocate for the respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 19th day of September, 2013) The applicant has moved the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 2.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur in Criminal Revisions No.18/2008 and 38/2008, whereby the order dated 5.1.2008 passed by the learned JMFC Gadarwara in MJ.No.159/2007 was set aside by which the maintenance of Rs.600/- was granted to the applicant.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the wife of the responden...
D. Venkat Rao Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-2013
Writ Petition No.16034/2013 (O) 19.09.2013 Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Govt. Adv.counsel for respondents. 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:- (1) A writ of Mandamus to respondent No.2 directing mutation of petitioner's name in the revenue records, (2) A command to respondent no.2 to initiate disciplinary action against the then respondent no.3, (3) To grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances, After taking me through the averments of the petition as well as papers placed on record, counsel submits that the petitioner has acquired title over the disputed land on the strength of registered sale deed dated 21.10.1997, (Ann. P-1) and thereafter he has filed an application for mutation of his name in the court of respondent no.3, Tahsildar, inspite that his name was not mutated in the revenue re...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »