Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Ambika Vishwakarma Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Proudhyogiki Vishwa Vidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Petitioner is a student pursuing a course in B.Pharma from Shriram Institute of Technology (Pharmacy), Jabalpur. Petitioner appeared in the M.P. Professional Examination Board, Bhopal, Pre-Pharmacy Test 2011 and she was placed at serial number 944 of the merit list in the unreserved category and 335 in the reserved category. She appeared as a candidate belonging to the OBC category and the result of the entrance examination Annexure P/1 reflects the aforesaid position. Based on her merit in the entrance examination the petitioner was eligible to participate in the counseling for admission for the B. Pharma Course and accordingly petitioner's name was registered and a centralized counseling was done by the Director, Technical Education, Government of M.P. on 6th July 2011 and in the online counseling held by the said authority, petitioner was registered for counseling, she submitted all the documents and was permitted to participate in the counseling. In the counseling conducted petitio...
Madho Singh and Others Vs. Ramkali and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16-5-2013, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7, C.P.C. is rejected by the Court below. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit against defendants/petitioners. In the said suit, the Court below fixed a date for plaintiffs' evidence. On the said date, i.e., 22-3-2013, the petitioners/defendants could not appear. The Court below proceeded ex parte against the defendants. The petitioners/defendants preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 7, C.P.C. (Annexure P-6), dated 9-5-2013. The said application was supported by an affidavit. In the said application, it was contended by the petitioners/defendants that the civil suit was fixed on 22-3-2013. On the said date, the petitioners/defendants were required to go to Ambah where their relative Resham was seriously ill. On 10-4-2013, his relative Resham expired because of said ailment. Because of death of Resham, the defendants again went to Ambah a...
Pawan Kumar Dhimaan and Another Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Vimla Jain, J. 1. This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 301/ 2013 registered at Police Station, Lakhanwada, District Seoni for the offences punishable under Sections 406/34 of the IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicants, who are the employees of M/s. Sadbhav Engineering Limited had illegally lifted 2708.50 cubic meters of aggregate out of 6900 cubic meters of aggregate which was granted to them on Supurdnama by the Competent Court and by their such facts, the applicants had caused a loss of revenue to the State to the tune of Rs.94,79,000/-. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants had filed applications for anticipatory bail bearing Nos. 12/2014 and 538/2013 before the Lower Court and the Lower Court had allowed both applications vide order dated 16-1-2014 and 30-12-2013 respectively. However, ...
Ramesh Kumar Jain Vs. Pradeep Kumar Jain and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
1. The petitioner / defendant No.2 has filed this petition against the order dated 31.10.2012 whereby his application preferred under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. (Annexure P/7) and application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (Annexure P/8) were rejected by the Court below. 2. In a suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. This application was rejected by the Court below on 26.04.2012 (Annexure P/3). On 21.07.2011, the petitioner filed his written statement. He raised objections regarding maintainability of suit and non-availability of cause of action. He also raised objection on the ground of limitation. It is further contended that as per Order 2 Rule 2 and as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable. Written statement is filed as Annexure P/4. The trial Court, thereafter framed seven issues. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the issues so framed, petitioner preferred an application u...
Kamlesh Vs. Geeta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Anil Kumar Sharma, J: 1. The appellant/husband has filed this first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20-2-2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2005 by learned Additional District Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol (M.P.). 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant was married to the respondent/wife (Geeta Choudhrey) on 29-4-2004 at Village Masiyari, their marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotency of respondent (Geeta Choudhrey) as her genital parts in the body were absent. On filing petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, challenging the marriage on the ground of contravention of the conditions specified in clause (2) of Section 5, the learned Trial Court, allowed the suit and passed the decree of nullity and granted 500/- per month for maintenance of wife and the appellant has challenged the said order of the learned Trial Court granting awarding maintenance. 3. Learned Counsel for the appe...
Yogesh Vijayvargiya and Another Vs. Prafull Joshi and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
1. The appellants/defendants have filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.12.2011 passed by District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No.29A of 2010 confirming the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2010 passed by the Court of I Civil Judge Class II, Guna in Civil Suit No. 10A of 2010 whereby, the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in representative capacity under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellants/defendants for restraining them from causing nuisance by playing music system DJ near the colony where the plaintiffs reside, was decreed. In this appeal, the appellants are referred to as defendants and the respondents as plaintiffs . 2. The facts in brief of the case are that the plaintiffs are residents of Mathkari Colony Guna and there exists a marriage Garden owned by the defendants namely Pawan Shree Mangalik Bhawan (which hereinafter would be referred to as marriage garden ), where ...
Dr. A.K. Shrivastava Vs. Tanveer Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Rajendra Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 calling in question a judgment and decree dated 7th March, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No. 156-A/03 whereby an application for dissolution of marriage between the parties had been dismissed. 2. Facts in brief necessary for decision of the case goes to show that the appellant herein is a Hindu by caste and is a Homeopathy doctor. Respondent is a Muslim lady and the marriage between both was solemnized as per their own wishes on 7th July, 1986. Out of the wedlock, a son was born to the parties in the year 1988 and in the year 1992, a daughter was also born. It seems that on the grounds of cruelty and mental harassment to the appellant by the respondent wife and by contending that she is unnecessarily harassing him, has made false allegations against him and has also instituted certain criminal case under Section 498-A,...
Maya Badgainya Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Smt. Sonali Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri R.S. Siddiqui, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent Union of India. Challenging the order dated 12/12/2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in the matter of rejecting petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner is wife of late Shri G.G. Badgainya who was working in the respondent establishment and died in harness on 26/11/2001. Initially an application was filed seeking compassionate appointment on behalf of the petitioner the petitioner's son Hemant Kumar Badgainya when nothing was done and when his claim was rejected on the ground that there is no vacancy. Hemant Kumar Badgainya challenged the same in O.A. No. 186/2007 and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal on 06/11/2008, thereafter it is stated that the petitioner had received information under the Right to Information Act that between the year 2008 to 2013, fif...
Sudhakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
A.M. Khanwilkar C.J. 1. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has essentially challenged the public notification issued by the Governor to amend the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code of 1959"), introducing Sub-section (6-a) in Section 165 of the Code of 1959, in particular. 2. The petitioner is a coloniser and develops lands into housing societies/residential plots. The petitioner after developing the land transfers it to third parties. Admittedly, the lands purchased by the petitioner are situated in scheduled area. The petitioner, therefore, applied to the Collector for permission to transfer the developed lands to third parties. The petitioner is admittedly a Non-tribal and intends to transfer the developed land to Non-tribals. According to the petitioner, Section 165(6-a) of the Code of 1959 can have no application to such transactions. The said provision ought to apply only to transactions between Tri...
Renu Gupta Vs. Devendra Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
1. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa in Misc. Criminal case No.16/2009, whereby the maintenance application of the applicant was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant and the respondent were married on 9.5.2002 at Satna. The applicant has preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. with the facts that for the first year after her marriage, there was no problem to her. In December, 2003, she was sent to her parents house and she resided with her parents and uncle in their house but, thereafter, the respondent did not take her back and refused to maintain her. A notice was sent by the respondent and the applicant replied on 4.2.2006. Thereafter, the respondent had lodged a divorce petition before the competent Court and on 27.9.2008, the trial Court passed the decree of divorce against the applicant. The appeal is pending before the Hig...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »