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.
Kamal Vs. State of M.P. Judgement Given By: Hon'ble the Chief Justice
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
W.P.No.7214/2005 09/01/2014 Shri R.S.Jaiswal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Heard counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Respondent No.2/Collector dated 20th July, 2005, Annexure P/6, whereby the Collector imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/-, to be paid by the petitioner, for violation of the condition of allotment of Patta. The argument of the petitioner is that such penalty could be imposed by Criminal Court in exercise of power under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short the Act).and that can be done only after a full-fledged criminal trial. The defence of the respondents is that the Collector exercised power to impose penalt...
Hafizulla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
M.Cr.C.No.14240/2013 9.1.2014 Shri A. Usmani, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A.for the respondent no.1/State. Shri M.M.Nabi, counsel for the respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 is present in person. She is duly identified by her counsel. Her presence is marked. The respondent no.2 has submitted that due to compromise now she is residing with her husband since last 3-4 months and now they have cordial relation and now she has no objection if the case pending before the appellate Court be quashed. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicants have moved an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings of the criminal case and appeal relating to Crime No.68 of 2009 registered at Police Station Ajaygarh, District Panna. Facts of the case in short is that a trial for Crime No.68 of 2009 was prosecuted before the JMFC for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506-B of I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In th...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Patel @ Awadhkishore Patel Judge ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
CRA No.1692/2012 Criminal Appeal No.1692/2012 9.1.2014 Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant. Shri Deependra Mishra, counsel for the respondent. Heard on admission. The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 12.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur in criminal case No.1529/2010, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under sections 354, 506-B, 323 of IPC. The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 17.9.2010, at about 11.30 a.m., the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was coming back from her field, situated at village Pur, Police Station Maharajpur, District Chhatarpur. The respondent came from back and held her hand with bad intention. On her shouting, her brother-in-law Hargovind came to the spot and therefore, the respondent ran away. The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR on the same day within 3 houRs.She was sent for her medico legal examination and thereafter, the charge-sh...
Ram Prasad Vs. Smt. Geeta Mehra Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.M.Cr.C.No.552/2007 Ram Prasad VERSUS Smt.Geeta Mehra --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Prakash Gupta, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K.Gangrade, counsel for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 9th day of January, 2014) A maintenance of Rs.1,200/- was granted to the respondent vide order dated 30.6.2006 passed by the learned JMFC, Betul in M.J.C.No.157/2004. That order was also confirmed in criminal appeal No.106/2005 vide order dated 7.6.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Betul. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the applicant has preferred the present revision.2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent has moved an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that her marriage took place on 10.3.2005. She was kept with comfo...
Satish Chandra Poddar Vs. Anil Kumar Poddar Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
W.P.No.18053/2012 (S.C.Poddar versus A.K.Poddar and otheRs.09.01 .2014 Shri Ms.Preeti Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission as well as stay. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order 30.04.2012 passed by XIIV Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in C.S.No.82-A/09 allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for amendment under order 6 rule 17 of the C.P.C.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit was filed in the year 2000 whereas the application for amendment was filed in the year 2012 after a long lapse time of 12 yeaRs.It is submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs had knowledge of all the facts and should have made appropriate amendment at the relevant point of time and in the circumstances, court below has erred in law in allowing the application for amendment. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the court be...
Badriprasad Chourasiya Vs. Prabhudayal Chourasiya Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
W.P.No.20396/2012 09/01/2014 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. This writ petition, under article 227 of the Constitution of India, at the instant of plaintiffs, is directed against the order dated 20/10/2012 passed by 4 th Civil Judge Class-II, Sagar in Civil Suit No.66- A/2003 whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC filed by the defendants has been allowed.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are in narrow compass. The first appellate Court, while passing the order of remand dated 14/2/2012 in Civil Appeal No.38-A/2009, had directed the trial Court to; decide issues 7 and 12 afresh. Issue No.7 related to as to whether the suit was properly valued and sufficient Court fee was paid ?. and Issue No.12 was; as to whether the counter claim filed by the defendants is properly valued and sufficient Court fee has been paid ?.3. Remand, in the o...
Ramcharan Vs. Bharti Doshi Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
1 S.A.No.266/2011 9/1/2014. Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for the appellants, heard on the question of admission. This is plaintiff Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC challenging the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and FiRs.Appellate Court in dismissing the relief of permanent injunction claimed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claiming to be the owners of certain land situated in Village Narela District Sehore filed the suit in question. Plaintiff No.1 claims to be the owner of 0.474 hectares of land bearing KhaSr.No.8 and plaintiff No.2 is owner of 6.65 acres in KhaSr.No.545. It is said that in the said land owned by the plaintiffs, a well is in existence which is used for irrigation purposes of their agriculatural land. It is further stated that defendant No.1 by a registered sale deed executed on 28.6.2007 filed an application under Section 131 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code before the defendant No.2 for opening of passage on the eastern side of the la...
Kadore Vs. Bhumanideen (D) Lrs. Puna Bai Judgement Given By: Hon'ble S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
1 Second Appeal No. 486/2011 9.1.2014 Shri R.P. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants. Heard on admission. This second appeal at the instance of plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2011 passed by Additional District Judge Bijawar, District Chhatarpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8 A/2010 which in turn affirmed the judgment and decree by First Civil Judge Class II, Bijawar dismissing the Civil Suit No. 8 A/2009. Suit by the plaintiffs was for declaration in respect of suit property bearing Khasra No. 167 admeasuring 0.454 Area situated at Village Madelanpura, Tahsil Bijawar, District Chhatarpur. That, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 have their share over 0.113 Arey and plaintiff No. 3 has his share over 0.341 arey and they are the joint owner in possession of suit property and for permanent injunction. That, Malkhan and Sarman were two brothers respectively survived ...
Shehzade Vs. Mohammad Kasim Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice R ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Second Appeal No.654 / 2011 ( Shehzade . Vs..Mohammad Kasim ) 09-01-2014 Heard Shri M.A.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the question of admission. The appellant/defendant has filed this apperal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12-5-2011 passed by the District Judge, Shahdol, in C.A.No.11A/2011 whereby the judgment and decree dated 21-12-2010 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Shahdol, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been affirmed. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant that the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming eviction of the appellant, for arrears of rent and for bona fide requirement of the accommodation for residential as well as business purposes under Section 12(1)(a).12(1)(e) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').It is submitted that while doing so, the respondent/plaintiff did not specifically plead i...
Smt. Sultana Bi Vs. Smt. Khatun Bi Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Ju ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
W.P.No.21167/2013 08/01/2014 Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard on the question of admission. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 19/10/2013 passed in Civil Suit No.4-A/2013 by 6 th Civil Judge Class-II, Damoh.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are in narrow compass. The plaintiffs have filed civil suit for possession of disputed house and land adjacent thereto ad-measuring 1244 sq.ft. illegally possessed by the defendants as alleged. For claiming vacant possession of part of the house and disputed plot, suit was valued at Rs.50,000/-. The defendants have objected to the valuation of the suit and questioned the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. In support of the objection and in reference to the suit property, the guidelines of 2012-13 prevalent in the Municipal Corporation as regards market value has been produced. On the strength thereof, the defendants have in...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »