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.
Amar Singh Rajput Vs. Chanrakant Singh Managae Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
1 M.Cr.C. No.17211 of 2013 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J Misc. Criminal Case No.17211/2013 Amar Singh Rajput. -Vs- Chandrakant Singh & others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri N.K.Jain, Advocate for the applicant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 4th day of March, 2014) The applicant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.3.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in unregistered criminal complaint case of the year 2010 (Amar Singh Rajput Vs. Chandrakant Singh & others) whereby the complaint filed by the applicant for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 and 120-B of IPC was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 26.9.2013 passed by the learned 8th Additiona...
Smt. Kusumrani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
M.Cr.C.No.237/2014 4/03/2014 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Alok Tapikar, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the second application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. The fiRs.application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9/12/2013. Applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.396/2013 registered at police station Garhakota, District Sagar for the offence punishable under section 302/149 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She is an old lady aged about 62 yeaRs.It is further submitted that applicant is patient of cancer. After dismissal of fiRs.application she got operated her hysterectomy. She was again found malignant cervical growth with involvement of right parametrium and right hydroureter and upper vagina. She is continuously taking chemotherapy. In support o...
Smt. Usha Urmaliya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
WRIT PETITION No.3062/2014 1 04.03.2014 Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioner would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioner. This Court in the case of Mohan...
Rajendra Rao Deshmukh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
WRIT PETITION No.3254/2014 1 04.03.2014 Shri Gyanendra Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Mohanla...
Kishanlal Arora Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
W.P.No.3719/2014 04.03.2014 Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General, on advance copy. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The only grievance of the petitioner is that a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) by the Collector to the Civil Court and the matter was pending before the said Reference Court. Vide order dated 12.5.2010, the Reference case was dismissed in default holding that the petitioner despite grant of opportunity could not produce any evidence. It is pointed out that such a couRs.was not open to the Reference Court as reference was required to be answered either in negative or in affirmation. It is contended that such a couRs.adopted by the Reference Court is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Khazan Singh (dead) by L.Rs.versus Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC242. It is further...
Chandumal Vs. Lalchand Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Keshav ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
SECOND APPEAL No.496/2000 1 04.03.2014 Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the appellant prayed for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions and file reply to I.A.No.13360/2011, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the respondents, with a clear stipulation that in case reply is not filed within a week, this Court will hear the application aforesaid without the reply of the appellant. It is contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that appellant intends to throw out the respondents from the demise premises. Construction is being made by the appellant and he is trying to dispossess the respondents, therefore, an injunction is necessary. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that there is an order passed by this Court on 31.07.2000 restraining the alienation of property by the respondents and yet another order was passe...
Vineet Kumar Shrivastava and Ors, Vs. the State of M.P. and Anr. Judge ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
M.Cr.C.No.8668/2003 04.03.2014 Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. None for the respondent No.2 though served. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to quash the proceeding of the JMFC, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.2144/2001 which is pending for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. After considering the entire material available on record, it appears that no compromise application was filed before the trial Court by any of the parties. If an application of compromise is filed before the trial Court and the trial Court rejects the same on the basis that the offence is not compoundable, then a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.may be moved before this Court. The applicant took an order of stay dated 8.1.2004 and thereafter nothing has been done before this Court. Neither the complainant/respondent No.2 was...
Northern Coalifields Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Jud ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Writ Petition No.3398/2014 04.03.2014 Shri H.S.Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shri Sandesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondents. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs :- "(i) To send for the case records, (ii) To direct the respondent No.3 to arrange the early disposal of the appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur and the application for stay of demand during the pendency of appeal. (iii) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the order of attachment of Bank account and blocking the operation of the bank account. (iv) To issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent No.1 and 2 from taking coercive recovery during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. (v) A writ of mandamus directing refund of the amounts recovered. (vi) Any other writ/order/direction as may be considered just and fair in the circumstances of the case m...
Soniya Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Writ Petition No :: 12317 / 2013 Soniya Tiwari versus State of MP and others 04.03.2014. Shri N.S.Thakur for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate, for State. Shri P.K.Kaurav for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3. Petitioner was a student who was granted admission to the B.Ed CouRs.in the Academic Session 2007-08, and contending that the result of the petitioner is not being declared by the University, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that this is one of the case where the recognition and affiliation granted to the Institute in question i.e AadaRs.B.Ed College, Palari, was cancelled; recognition was never granted to the Institute in question; and, the Institute without even grant of recognition admitted the students. The matter came to this Court and thereafter travelled to the Supreme Court in a SLP filed. The Supreme Court, in the SLP filed by most of the colleges, passed an interim order directing for grant of admis...
Athai Dheemar Vs. Smt.Chiroja Bai Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Jus ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Second Appeal No.247/2003 04/03/2014 Shri A.L. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.101-A/2002 by IV Additional District Judge, Jabalpur arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12.9.2000 passed in Civil Suit No.19- A/1997 by the Civil Judge Class I, Patan, District Jabalpur.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the land in suit by virtue of the Will dated 9.2.1993 and the respondent No.1 be restrained to interfere in the said property of the appellant. It was stated in the plaint that the land bearing Kh. No.197 area 0.97 decimal was owned by one Puranlal, who died in the year 1993. Since Puranlal was having no son, he was living with the appellant. On his death, appellant performed all the last rights of said Puranlal. Because...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »