Madhya Pradesh Court February 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. Champa Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
- 1 -1 W.A.No.921/2011 19/2/2014 : None appears for the appellant. Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. This writ appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging an order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P.No.11094/2011. Appellant claims to have married Late Shri Kamta Prasad Richharia sometimes in the year 1992. Shri Richharia retired from Government service on 31.8.2002 and while he was alive, he has instituted a Civil Suit for declaration and injunction. After death of Shri Kamta Prasad Richharia appellant received the family pension. However, after death of Shri Kamta Prasad appellant filed an application for impleading her as a party as legal heir of Late Shri Kamta Prasad in a proceeding held under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. The learned Civil Court in a proceeding held under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC i.e.the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Naogaon on 23.4.2010 rejected the appl...
Smt. Vandana Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
- 1 -1 W.P.No.8945/2013 19/2/2014 : Shri S.D.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents State. Petitioner was appointed as a Contract Teacher and worked from 22.7.2003 to 30.4.2004 as a Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III. Petitioner's services were terminated on 30.4.2004 and it is seen that petitioner has kept quite over the matter, did not take any action and it is only in the year 2013 that a representation was sent by the petitioner vide Annexure P/3 on 16.1.2013. Inter alia contending that at least now the representation of the petitioner for re-engagement should be considered, this writ petition is filed. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that petitioner's services were terminated in the year 2004, thereafter statutory rules have come into force and now Samvida Shala Shikshak or Assistant Teachers can be appointed only after they pass the eligibility test conducted by the competent ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kailash Sharma Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
1 W.A.188/13. 19.2.2014. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned G.A.for the appellants. Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the respondent.I.A. No.3143/13, for condonation of delay. Looking to the grounds stated in the application supported by an affidavit, IA No.3143/13 is allowed and the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.11.2012 passed in W. P.9530/2006, by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent against the penalty of imposition of minor punishment was allowed on the ground that before imposition of minor penalty, it was incumbent on the Disciplinary Authority to record the findings in respect of charges and pass a speaking order in the matter. The learned Single Judge has found that on non- compliance of such condition, the order passed by the Disciplinary authority cannot be sustained. The facts of the case are that respondent was issued a notice Annexure P.5 dated 30.12.2004, by whi...
C.i.T. Vs. Mp.State Handloom Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
- 1 -1 ITR No.96/1998 19/2/2014 : None appears for the appellant. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act was filed on 1st February 1998 and till date even notice on the same have not been issued. For the assessment of tax made in the years 1979-80 to 1985-1986 with regard to imposition of penalty as interference has been made by the Commissioner, Income Tax, Appeal and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, this application has been filed by the revenue. It is the case of the revenue that penalty imposed has been interfered with on improper grounds. Having gone through the memorandum of appeal and the questions of law indicated therein, we are of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the explanation given by the assessee for the delay in depositing of the tax is attributed to certain delay in internal auditing of assessee's account and compulsory auditing required to be done by the statutory autho...
Bharu Singh Vs. Chatar Singh and Ors. Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2014
:: 1 :: Second Appeal No.1300/2005 19.2.2014. Shri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 15.2.2005 passed by FiRs.Additional District Ashta, District Sehore in Civil Appeal No.23-A/2004, arising out of judgement and decree dated 1.5.2004 passed by Second Civil Judge Class I Ashta in Civil Suit No.129-A/1986. Plaintiff owes agriculture land bearing KhaSr.No.48 and 49 admeasuring 8.31 acres in Village Khatsura Tehsil Ashta. Adjacent to plaintiff's land, there is agriculture land of the defendant no.1 and 2 bearing KhaSr.No.47 area 2.47. On the boundary of the agricultural fields, two Mahua trees are standing. Plaintiff alleging that in demarcation vide Case No.12-A/12/79-80 dated 2.6.1980, both the trees were demarcated within the plaintiff's boundary; however, undermining the same, defendants no.1 and 2 have extended their boundary by raising the hedge and covered the trees in questi...
Amresh Shukla Vs. G. P. Sharma Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justic ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
W.P.No.2390/2011 18.2.2014 Shri Priyankush Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for respondents. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 12.1.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.25-A/2008, pending in the Court of 12th Addl. Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal. By the said order, the right of petitioner as a plaintiff to adduce evidence was closed and the case was fixed for evidence of defendants. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the entire order sheets produced on record of this writ petition, it would be clear that the petitioner has not taken more than two adjournments for the purposes of adducing the evidence. In fact, the case was fixed on 11.1.2011 for cross-examination of the petitioner. Since the counsel for the respondents/defendants could not appear before the Court, the cross-examination could not be commenced and, therefore, the matter was posted on 12.1.2011...
Lakhan Chandelkar Vs. Smt. Sakun Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Just ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
M.Cr.C.No.6250/2010 M.Cr.C.No.6250/2010 18.2.2014 Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission. The respondent is the divorced wife of the applicant, who was granted a sum of Rs.400/- as maintenance vide order dated 13.3.1992 and therefore, the respondent moved an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.The learned JMFC, Betul (Shri P.K.Patel) in Misc. Judicial case No.105/2008 vide order dated 28.7.2009 granted a maintenance of Rs.1,200/- to the respondent. In criminal revision No.132/2009, the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Betul vide order dated 23.2.2010 enhanced the amount of maintenance from a sum of Rs.1,200/- to a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid ordeRs.the applicant has preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.The only question which is involved in the present case is the quantum of maintenance. The applicant gave a suggestion to his wife Smt.Sakun Bai (P.W.1) in para 5 that the applicant's income w...
Shobharam Vs. Mewalal Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Keshav ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
S.A.No.1263/2009 18.2.2014 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Priyank Khandelwal, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 6. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :- Whether the fiRs.appellate Court committed an error in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in refusing to condone the delay of 9 days where sufficient cause was shown by the appellant warranting condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the appeal ?. The lower appellate Court rejected the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the 9 days' delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate Court, as a result, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. Though notice of this appeal after admission was issued to the respondents and the respondent No.1/plaintiff was duly served, but nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 to contest this appeal. The law in this respect is well settled. The Apex Court...
Shyamlal Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
C.R.No.184/2008 18.2.2014 Shri Sanjeev Shukla with Shri Sunil Badgaiya, learned counsel for the applicants. There is no force in the revision as the same is against an order passed on a review application filed before the lower appellate Court, which has been dismissed on merit. A suit was filed by the plaintiff. The said suit was dismissed and, therefore, a FiRs.Appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court. The FiRs.Appeal too was dismissed and, therefore, a Second Appeal was filed before this Court. The Second Appeal filed before this Court against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, was also dismissed affirming the said judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. The applicants thereafter moved an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the order passed by the lower appellate Court, on the ground that certain documentary evidence which was not within their knowledge, was required to be produced before the...
Narendra Kumar Malpani Vs. Sacchdeva and Sons Rice Mills Ltd. and Anr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
C.R.No.556/2004 18.02.2014 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Though this Civil Revision is admitted for hearing and an interim stay is granted, respondents are served, but nobody is appearing on behalf of respondents. Despite the service of this revision, nobody is appearing on behalf of respondents to oppose the claim made in the revision. This revision is directed against the order dated 20.07.2004 passed in Execution Case No.1/1999, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur. The applicant was not the defendant in the suit filed by respondent No.1. A monetary claim was made against the respondent No.2 by respondent No.1-plaintiff, which suit was decreed. In the execution proceeding an application was made for impleadment of the applicant herein as a judgment debtor and that application was allowed without issuing any notice of the application to the applicant. An application under Section 151 of CPC was filed by the applicant for deleting hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »