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.
Smt. Raniya Vs. Matadeen Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Raje ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
S.A.No.1156/2012 Smt. Raniya & ORS.versus Matadeen & ORS.07/01/2014 Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri K.S.Jha, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.This appeal is admitted for hearing and for consideration of following substantial questions of law : A.(i) Whether the defence plea that defendants requested plaintiffs to execute sale deed in their favour with respect to the suit land but they fraudulently got executed an exchange deed from defendant No.1 itself amounts to admission of plaintiff's title by them ?. (ii) Whether title of the plaintiffs to the suit land ought to have been upheld in view of failure of defendants to prove that the exchange deed was got executed from them fraudulently ?. C.(i) Whether from the documentary evidence available on record including the Kistbandi Khatauni of 1958-59 recording plaintiffs and their predecessor as owners of the suit land their title to the suit land has been proved ?. (ii) Whether the appellate Court has made out a case ...
Madanlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Writ Petition No.53/2014 07/01/2014 Shri Ravindra Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, on advance copy. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking following relief: 7.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents to decide the petitioners claims/representations in the light of notification dated 3.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) as has been directed in order Annexure P-4 passed in W.P.No.939/2009. 7.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be given to the petitioneRs.in the interest of justice. It is contended that the similar issue was looked into by this Court in the case of Shankaral and others v. Collector of District Narsinghpur W.P.No.939/2009 decided on 17.1.2013. It is contended that if similar directions are issued, the purpose of filing of the present writ petition would be fulfilled. This Court has looked into certain policies and circulaRs.whi...
Smt. Somwati Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
W.P.No.8180/2013(S) (Smt. Somwati Singh versus State of MP and others ) 07.01.2014 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by communication Annexure P/4 by which the petitioner has been informed that her application for being considered for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III has been rejected on account of the fact that she has filed the application after the cut off date notified by the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working in rural area therefore she had no information about the fact that the application form had to be submitted latest by 15.09.2012 which was an extended date. It is submitted that on this count the application was submitted on 30.11.2012 which has been rejected by the impugned communication. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pe...
B.S. Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
CRR No.1628/2013 Criminal Revision No.1628/2013 7.1.2014 Shri S.K.Dwivedi, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard on I.A.No.21608/2013, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision. Looking to the grounds mentioned in the application, delay of 41 days in filing the present revision is hereby condoned. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Bhopal in criminal case No.9741/2012 and the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in criminal appeal No.253/2013, whereby the application under section 85 (3) of the Cr.P.C.filed by the applicant was dismissed and appeal was also dismissed. The facts of the case, in short, are that, a criminal trial was proceeding against the applicant before the trial Court and since he was absconding, some of his properties were att...
Thuvna Sour Vs. Hiruaa Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
W.P. No.22123/2013 06/01/2014 Shri Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioner. By this writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to order dated 24/10/2013 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.30/2012 by 1 st Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh setting aside the order dated 17/10/2012 passed in Civil Suit No.38-A/2012 by 3 rd Civil Judge Class II, Tikamgarh and remanding the matter to the trial Court with direction to decide the applications under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed by plaintiff and defendant No.1 separately.2. Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that the alleged sale deed dated 25/9/1995 and the mutation order dated 16/1/1996 be declared as null and void against the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was also filed to the effect that the suit land vide Khasra No.247, area 1.275 hectare has devolved upon hi...
Harihar Prasad Lakhera Vs. Shri Shiv Shekhar Shukla M.D. (i.A.S.) Judg ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
1 Co.C. No.1933/13. 7.1.2014. Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on IA No.10848/13, applicant's application for condoning the delay so also on merits to examine the stake of litigation. This contempt petition is filed under Section 12 of Contempt Act r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to initiate a contempt proceeding against the respondents contemptnors and to punish them on account of violation of the order of this Court dated 23.8.2012 passed in W.P.No.12291/2010, whereby such authorities was directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass the order regarding his regularization in the department. As per averments till filing the petition the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authorities in compliance of the direction of the order dated 23.8.2012. The applicant's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record made his limited prayer for disposal of this petition with a direction to the...
Smt. Ranu Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
1 W.P.No.8074/2013 7/1/2014. Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Devashish, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 5. Shri R.B.Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division on 20.9.2012 directing for reinstatement of respondent No.6 on the post of Panchayat Secretary, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who claims to be the ex-Sarpanch of the panchayat in question. A resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat for removal of respondent No.6 from the post of Panchayat Karmi and also from the post of Secretary and accordingly vide order Annexure P/3 dated 18.8.2008 respondent was removed from the post in question mainly on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him. Respondent No.6 filed an appeal against the same and on 25.7.2011 respondent No.3 the Collector dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.6. Aggrieved thereof respondent No.6 preferred a revision petition b...
Paras Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
MCC No.1044/2013 06.01.2014 Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance copy. Though there is inordinate delay in filing the MCC for restoration of W.P.No.3165/2005, but on the affidavit filed by the counsel, it is stated that nobody could appear before the Court on second round, as a prayer for adjournment was made on the fiRs.round. The Advocate appearing in the fiRs.round was under the impression that time as sought was allowed and such information was given to the arguing counsel. This being the reason, without intimation to the counsel in appropriate manner, the writ petition was dismissed, but this fact was not communicated to the petitioners or to the applicants. That being so, inordinate delay in filing the MCC for restoration is sought to be condoned. Though notices of this I.A.have not been issued to the respondents, but learned counsel for the respondents on advance copy seriously opposes su...
Banshilal Bansal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
MCC No.1041/2013 06.01.2014 Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State on advance copy. Though there is inordinate delay in filing the MCC for restoration of W.P.No.5030/2004, but on the affidavit filed by the counsel, it is stated that nobody could appear before the Court on second round, as a prayer for adjournment was made on the fiRs.round. The Advocate appearing in the fiRs.round was under the impression that time as sought was allowed and such information was given to the arguing counsel. This being the reason, without intimation to the counsel in appropriate manner, the writ petition was dismissed, but this fact was not communicated to the petitioners or to the applicants. That being so, inordinate delay in filing the MCC for restoration is sought to be condoned. Though notices of this I.A.have not been issued to the respondents, but learned counsel for the respondents on advance copy seriously opposes s...
Smt. Shyama Mishra Vs. Mohan Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Ju ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
M.Cr.C.No.1592/2012 M.Cr.C.No.1592/2012 6.1.2014 None for the applicant. None appeared for the applicant on 15.2.2012, 4.4.2012 and 8.3.2013. None appeared for the applicant even on today. The present application is pending since the year 2012 and looking to the conduct of the learned counsel for the applicant, it would be proper to consider the present application for grant of leave to appeal in absence of the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12.8.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Bhopal in R.T.No.3679/2010, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The facts of the case, in short, are that, an agreement took place between the parties for sell of a property and thereafter, that agreement was cancelled. The respondent gave a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- to the applicant to return the sell amount. Howev...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »