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.
Ramprakash Vs. Prabhu Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice R ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
C.R. No.120/2007 06/01/2014 Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Gulab Sohane, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Heard. By the impugned order dated 28/2/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nasrullaganj in MJC No.2/2003 the applicant's application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside ex-parte proceedings has been rejected.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant filed claim petition for compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 26/2/1996. the applicant has engaged counsel to appear on his behalf in the said claim case, however, despite instruction given to the counsel to up date the applicant as regards the progress of the case and the date fixed in the case, he did not inform the applicant the date fixed as 16/12/2002. On the said date the counsel had appeared but reported no instructions, as a result, the case was dismissed on the said date for want of prosecution. The applic...
Kudau Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Criminal Revision No.2331/2013 06.01.2014 Shri P.S.Tomar, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicant has challenged the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No.440/2013 whereby charge of offence under Section 326 of IPC is framed against the applicants along with other charges. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 23.12.2012 at about 5:00 PM the applicants assaulted the victim Dashrath in front of house of Kudau Sahu at Village Luharra (Police Station Naryavali District Sagar).After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that the various fractures were found to the victim Dashrath on his fingers whereas such injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Due to the fra...
Ramlal Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
W.P.No.22287/2013 06.01.2014 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the controveRs.involved in the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of M.P.And others [2012 (2) MPLJ605, wherein only this much was directed that the respondents were directed to examine the requirement of refixation of honorarium in the present days of price hike. It is contended that a writ petition was earlier filed by the said person which was decided and subsequently the order passed passed in the said writ petition was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as also in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, though the writ petition filed by Gopal Chawla and others (supra) subsequently was deci...
Umer Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Umer Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.13377 / 2013 3.1.2014: Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the State. This is a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner Shri Umer Singh. Interalia contending that his son namely Krishna Kumar is under illegal detention with the police authorities. Notice was issued to the police authorities through the office of Advocate General and they were directed to produce the corpus and matter was directed to be listed for further orders on 2.1.2014. The case was listed on 2.1.2014, however, it seems that the corpus was produced in the court around 3'clock and Bench for hearing the matter was only available upto 1.30 pm. That being so the case could not be heard yesterday. As corpus is produced by the police authority, a request was made by Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for taking up the matter today i.e.on 3.1.2014. Accordingly case was directed to be listed ...
Karan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
W.P.NO.10314/2013 03/01//2014 Shri Vipin Yadav,learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. D.K.Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents. Challenging the down gradating of confidential report ordered by the Director General, (Home Guard) Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal reducing grading granted by the competent authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner is working in the respondents department as District Commandant. For the year ending 2010, confidential report of the petitioner was graded as 'Good' by the reporting authority namely Divisional Commandant(Home Guard).The same was countersigned and approved by the Collector. Agreeing with the grading 'Good' granted by the Divisional Commandant(Home Guard) on 05-03-2010, Inspector General of Police also approved the grading of Good(Kha) of the petitioner. However, when the Director General(Home Guard) M.P.down graded the same by making following entires : **eSa lger ugha gWwA budk Lrj vkSlr ls de gSA buesa igy dh 'k...
Tejhbhan Kotwar Vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1 W.P No.7468 of 2013 03.01.2014 Shri Sandeep Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajas Pohankar, counsel for the respondents. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ against the respondents/ authorities for the following reliefs :- 1. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus, respondents be directed to protect the basic from the date of conversion.2. That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner as they have done for other similar situated employees and similar relief may be extended to the petitioner also.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deems fit and proper kindly be granted to the petitioner.2. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, on perusing the record, I have found that with respect of the dispute raised in this petition, the representation of the petitioner Annex.P/3 is still pending in the office...
Kripa Tori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JUDICATOR AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.8098/2011. Kripa Tori and others. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. For Petitioners : Shri B. M. Dwivedi Advocate. For Respondent No.1 to 3: Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.4&5 : Shri Kamlesh Lakhera Advocate. For Respondent No.6. : Shri Shanshank Verma, Advocate. ORDER ( Passed on 03.01.2014) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 15.3.2011 (Ann. P.5) passed by the respondent No.3/ Board of Revenue Gwalior in suo motu review case No.618/PBR/2010 registered under Section 51 of M. P. Land Revenue Code (In short the Code.) to review the earlier order dated 16.4.2007 (Ann. P.2) passed in appeal No.412/PBR/2006, whereby allowing such suo-motu review the aforesaid earlier order dated 16.4.2007 (Ann.P.2), affirming the order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Appeal ...
Geeta Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1 Writ Petition No.18597/2013 Writ Petition No.18597/2013 03.01.2014 Shri S.Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for State of Madhya Pradesh on advance notice. Heard on admission. On the allegation that she has been harassed in the matrimonial home at Chhindwara on demand of dowry, petitioner, a resident of Bhopal lodged an FIR on 17.08.2013 at police station Mahila, Bhopal for an offence under Section 498-A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The report reflects major part of alleged harassment being meted out at Chhindwara and the alleged accused i.e.husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law being resident of Chhindwara. Accordingly, while registering the report at zero number, the same was transferred to police station Kotwali Chhindwara, at Chhindwara the alleged offence has been registered vide crime No.762/2013 at police station Kotwali where the investigation is in pro...
Smt. Geeta Dubey Vs. Saroj Suhane Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Jus ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Writ Petition No.10275/2013. 3.1.2014. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri K.S.Jha, learned counsel for petitioner. Heard on admission. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of petitioner/plaintiff, is directed against the order- dated 1.6.2013; whereby, an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the petitioner against the order by Civil Court, rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, has been dismissed. Suit by the petitioner is for declaration of title on the basis of adveRs.possession and for permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing KhaSr.No.37/1 (New No.35) situated at Village Kosamghat, Jabalpur on the ground that the petitioner and respondent no.1 jointly availed the loan from respondent no.2 and in lieu of security, the suit land was mortgaged. As per paragraph 4 of the suit plaint, the suit property i.e.KhaSr.No.37/1 belongs to respondent No.1,...
Smt. Rani Bai Vs. Smt. Lalita Agrawal Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
W.P.No.8867/2013 03.01.2014 Shri Ajay Sen, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent. Heard on the question of admission. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants have assailed the order dated 21.12.2011, passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.8/2011, by the District Judge Ujariya, by which the order dated 15.7.2011, passed in Civil Suit No.3-A/2011, by the Civil Judge, Class-II Umariya, has been affirmed, stating that the Courts below have not seen the material evidence and have passed an order granting injunction against the petitioners and rejecting the appeal of the petitioners against the said injunction order. It is contended that if such evidence is looked into, it would be clear that no injunction could be granted in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff. The order impugned is looked into. The trial Court while considering the application made by the respondent/ plaintiff under Order 39 Rule ...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »