Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 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.
Leelawati Vs. Krishna Kumar Chaturvedi Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
1 M.A.No.8/2007 13/1/2014. Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Dinesh Koushal, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to the appellant claimant by a joint award passed on 31.8.2006 in Claim Case No.12/2004 wherein for the injury suffered by the claimant a total compensation of Rs.20,500/- has been granted on various counts, this appeal has been filed by the appellant Smt. Leelawati. It is the case of the appellant that on 20th of May, 2003 she was travelling in a Jeep bearing No.MP18/0284 belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 when the accident occured and she suffered certain injury on her left hand, it is said that due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, it dashed with a tree and the appellant suffered injury. Based on documents and material that came on record, claim has been allowed and compensation has been assessed by holding that claimant Leelawati has suffered fracture of her...
Shiv Kumar Tiwari Vs. Shri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Shiv Kumar Tiwari & Another versus Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Conc. No.1939 / 2012 13.1.2014: Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned counsel for the respondent. Complaining disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 2.4.2012 in W.P.No.18353/2011(s) this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is seen that after considering the rival contentions with regard to claim of petitioners for appointment without adverting on the merits of the matter, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 in the writ petition, namely the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Jaitahari, District Anuppur to decide the claim of petitioners for grant of appointment in accordance to the order passed by the Collector Anuppur. It was indicated in the order that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the Chief Executi...
A.K.Chopra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
W.P.No.8229/2012 13.01.2014 Shri Umesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. (A.M.Khanwilkar) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Chief Justice Judge snb/- W.P.No.17419/2011 13.01.2014 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri T.K.Khadka, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 & 6. The petition is already admitted in terms of the order dated 18.3.2013. To proceed for hearing as per its turn under appropriate caption. In the meantime, parties are free to exchange pleadings, if so advised. (A.M.Khanwilkar) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Chief Justice Judge snb/- W.P.No.3355/2010 13.01.2014 Shri Akash Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Issue notice. Returnable on 10th March, 2014. In addition, dasti permitted. (A.M.Khanwilkar) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Chief Justice Jud...
Manoj Bordia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Cr.A.No.45/2014 13.01.2014 Shri S.K.Gangrade, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Standing Counsel for the Lokayukta. Heard on the question of admission. Having perused the impugned judgment, this appeal appears to be arguable, hence the same is admitted for final hearing. Respondent's counsel has taken notice of this admission, hence no further notice is required in this regard. Record of the trial court be requestioned within a month. Also heard on 215/14, appellant's application for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail as he has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 7, RI for two years with fine of Rs.2000 and under Section 13 (1) (D).r/ w Section 13 (2).RI for two years with fine of Rs.2000 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. As per available record after delivery of the impugned judgment and conviction awarded jail sentence has been suspended by the trial court upto ...
Jhulli Kachhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Jhulli Kachhi versus State of M.P.1 Second Appeal No.948 / 2011 13/1/2014 :- Shri Siddharth Gulatee, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned government advocate for respondent/State, on advance notice. This is plaintiffs appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court in the matter of granting injunction to the appellant and declaration with regard to right of possession over the suit property. Plaintiffs claim right to the property in question bearing Kh. No.74/53 and 74/54 measuring 2.10 acres and 1.50 acres respectively situated in village Khas Gauraiya, Tahsil and District Chhatarpur. It is the case of appellant/plaintiff before the court below that he is in continuous possession of the suit property since 1972 and the possession being adveRs.to the respondent/government he claims right to retain the possession, on the basis of adveRs.possession accruing to him. That apart, he claims title based on ...
Ramendra Rpatap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
M.Cr.C. No. 14476/2013 13.1.2014 Shri Sanjay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Akhilendra Singh, Govt. Advocate for the State. Heard. Today also, case diary is not available. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for that this case may be considered on the basis of matter decided by this Court on 13.11.2013 in M.Cr.C.No. 11367/2013. According to prosecution, petitioner's vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration no. MP53G0434 was seized by the Officials of forest department because the aforesaid vehicle was found indulged in transportation of illegal sand. On 23.6.2013, the aforesaid seizure was made. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for supurdnama was dismissed by the Court below on the pretext that confiscation proceedings have already been initiated by the concerned forest authorities. Placing reliance on 2000 (1) MPLJ (F.B) 289Madhukar Rao versus ...
Mohd. Mansoor Vs. Javed Rafeeque Ansari Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
W.P.No.4141/2013 13/01/2014 Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioners. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 08/01/2013 passed in RCS No.01-A/2012 by 3 rd Additional District Judge, Bhopal. By the said order the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by the plaintiff has been allowed.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are narrow in compass. A suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent has been filed against the petitioner/defendant in respect of the suit house; a residential accommodation. As per plaint allegation, the suit premise was given on rent of Rs.10,000/- per month vide rent agreement dated 17/8/2009 entered between the younger brother of the plaintiff namely Aarif Rafeeq Ansari and the petitioner/defendant. Aarif Rafeeq Ansari died on 19/11/2009. Thereafter defendants have paid rent to the respondent No.1/plaintiff by cheque, details of payment made by ...
Shankar Singh Chandel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
M.Cr.C.No.17026 of 2013 13.01.2014 Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned PL for respondent-State. Having heard on IA No.28463/13, applicant's application for early hearing of this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail on merits. For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed. On asking the learned PL whether he is under receipt of the case diary on which he submits that he is under receipt of the same. Since the case diary is available, hence the matter is taken up for hearing on merits. Heard. On behalf of the applicant, Shankar Singh Chandel, this petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.208/13, registered at Police Station Kotma, district Anuppur against him alongwith some other Co.accused for the offence of Sections 366, 376 (2).(n).343, 190, 195-A, 212 and Section 34 of IPC. Applicant's counsel a...
Narmada Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
1 W.P.No.15557/2012 13.1.2014 Shri L.S.Singh, learned senior counsel with Shri J.L.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.V.Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State of M.P.Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel with Shri K. Rohan, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4. With consent of learned counsel for parties, petition is finally heard. Assail is to an order dated 5.7.2012 whereby the respondent, M.P.Power Generating Company and its functionary while declining the option to serve till 60 years has directed the retirement of the petitioner on his completion of 58 yeaRs.Petitioner, Senior Plant Assistant, Grade I, Boiler Operation availed Medical leave from 2.4.2012 to 25.5.2012. During the period when petitioner was on leave, the respondent No.1 in pursuance to Department of Energy Government of Madhya Pradesh, communication No.3313/13/2012/02 dated 24.4.2012 approved the proposal by respondent No.2 of enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years and directed for ...
Sardar Sikhbir Singh Vs. Kakamani Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
CRR No.2338/2012 Criminal Revision No.2338/2012 13.1.2014 Shri B.P.Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri K.K.Patel, counsel for the respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 7.11.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, whereby the application under section 128 of the Cr.P.C.filed by the respondent was accepted and the previous maintenance was directed to be paid. The facts of the case, in short, are that, vide order dated 24.9.2001 passed in M.J.C.No.889/2001, a maintenance was granted to the respondent Kakamani Singh. Thereafter, a compromise took place between the parties on 15.12.2003, which was not filed before the trial Court but, in the light of that compromise, mother of the respondent Kakamani had withdrawn his application of execution. When an application under section 128 of the Cr.P.C.was filed by the respondent through his mother then, the trial Court started recovery of the remaining mainten...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »