Madhya Pradesh Court June 2012 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.
Commissioner, Commercial Traders Tax Vs. M/S Golden Star Tobacco Trade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
TR No.13/12 20.06.2012 Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioner. Heard on admission. This reference is admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, appellate board was justified in holding that unmanufactured tobacco appearing in Part IV of Schedule II of M.P. Vanijiyik Kar Adhiniyam is exempted from commercial tax? Issue notice to the other side. PF within a week by RAD. Be listed for hearing along with T.R.No.14/12. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge JLL...
Commissioner, Commercial Tax Vs. M/S Golden Star Tobacco Traders
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
TR No.14/12 20.06.2012 Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioner. Heard on admission. This reference is admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, appellate board was justified in holding that unmanufactured tobacco appearing in Part IV of Schedule II of M.P. Vanijiyik Kar Adhiniyam is exempted from commercial tax? Issue notice to the other side. PF within a week by RAD. Be listed for hearing along with T.R.No.14/12. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge JLL...
Devendra Kumar Chouksey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.A.No.533/2012 Devendra Kumar Choubey State of M.P. And others. 20.06.2012. Shri Abhijeet A.Awasthy, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.A.G.for the State./respondents 1 to 7. Shri Pandey, the learned Dy.A.G, made a statement that in the matter, situation has changed and the matter has been handed over to the Special Investigation Team by the State which has already registered criminal cases. It is further submitted by him that the allegations made by the appellant shall be taken care of by the SIT and the appellant may cooperate with the investigation. At this stage, Shri Awasthy submitted that the complaint in Annexure P/2 be also taken care of by the SIT during investigation. The appellant may draw attention of the investigation agency to Annexure P/2 by filing a copy of complaint to the SIT. Needless to say, the SIT shall take care of such document. At present, this appeal is disposed of finally in view of the statement made by Shri Vijay Pandey, the learned Deputy Ad...
M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikash Nigam (Bhopal) Vs. Vijay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.A.No.431/2012 20.6.2012 Shri Sanjay K.Agarwal, counsel for appellant. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate with Shri M.K.Verma, counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A., for respondent nos.5 to 7. I.A.No.5339/2012 seeking permission to file appeal. Learned counsel for respondents have no objection, if the appellant is permitted to file this appeal. In view of aforesaid, I.A.No.5339/2012 is allowed. Appellant is permitted to file appeal. Heard on admission. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 submitted that looking to the short controversy in this case, the matter may be heard finally. In view of aforesaid, this appeal is directed to be listed for hearing on 31.7.2012. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for State submits that the State has also filed an appeal against the order passed by the Single Bench. Shri Tiwari to take steps for analogous hearing of both the matters. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE M....
Arvind Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.P. No. 8649/2012 (Arvind Gupta Vs. State of MP and another) 20.06.2012 Heard Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.S. Bisen, learned G.A. for the State on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the tender notice dated 18.05.2012 issued by the respondent no.2 proposing to auction the right to establish Public Service Centre at Badwara District Katni on the ground that the petitioner is already running the same since 10.12.2010 under the contract with the respondent no.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the Collector on 12.06.2012 against issuance of the tender notice but no heed thereon has been paid till date. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent no.2, the Collector, Katni before proceeding further with t...
Anis Raj Mishra @ Baba Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
1 Criminal Revision No. 2121/2010 20.06.2012. Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. This petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed by the petitioner against the charge put by 2ndAddl. Sessions Judge,Sohagpur, District-Hoshangabad on 18.12.2010 for offence punishable under Sections 394,397and 120-B of IPC. Prosecution case, in brief,is that the petitioner with co-accused persons conspired to make loot in Krishna Lodge, hired Tavera vehicle belonging to complainant Sanjay Kethwas and left for Pachmarhi with Kabir. Other co-accused followed by motor cycle, stopped the Tavera, threatened Sanjay Kaithwas by way of a country pistol, tied him with rope and took him away and tied him with a tree in the jungle. They sold the vehicle to Ashok Soni at Tikamgarh for Rs.One Lac. Petitioner is said to have absconded after the incident. He was arreste...
Bhura Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
MCrC No.6493/2012. 20.6.2012. Shri Surendra Verma, Advocate for petitioners. Shri P.K. Chaurasia, P.L. for respondent-State. Arguments heard. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). The petitioners are aggrieved by the order-dated 22.5.2012 passed by ASJ, Pawai Distt. Panna in S.T. No.153/10, rejecting their application, under Section 311 of the Code, for recalling Yogendra Pratap Singh (PW8), Suneeta Singh (PW9), Bhupendra Singh (PW10), Neha Singh (PW14) and Rupendra Singh (PW15), who were examined as eyewitnesses at the trial, for further cross-examination. The petitioners are facing trial upon the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 396 and 302 read with 149 of the IPC. The application was moved on the ground that none of the aforesaid witnesses has come forward to support the prosecution version in their subsequent statements recorded in the trial, pending as S.T. No.38/12, against co-accused Raghve...
Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
MCrC No.6889/2012. 20.6.2012. Shri Satish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Heard on admission. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). The petitioners are aggrieved by order-dated 23.5.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Cri. Revision No.49/12 affirming the order-dated 27.4.12 passed by Shri Sudhanshu Saxena, JMFC, Narsinghpur in Cri. Case No.2791/08 whereby petitioners application, under Section 311 of the Code, for recalling complainant Smt. Savita Sharma (PW2) for further cross- examination on the ground that the previous counsel Shri Raj Bahadur Singh could not ask questions on certain material points was rejected. The petitioners are facing trial upon the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 498A IPC and 3 read with 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal that Smt. Savita Sharma had appeared as a witness before the Court on 23.8.2011 and 22.9.2011 ...
Manisha Lalwani Vs. D. V. Paul
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
M.C.C.No.1159/2011 20.6.2012 Shri Mohd. Ali, counsel for applicant. Shri J.Prasad, counsel for respondent. Shri Prasad prays further two weeks time to file reply, which prayer is vehemently opposed by the applicant. From the perusal of the record, we find that it is a transfer application of a civil suit from the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Katni to any other place and the respondent is seeking time to file reply since 31.10.2011. In the aforesaid circumstances, we allow a week's time to the respondent to file reply. Reply be filed within the aforesaid period. Be listed for hearing on 28.6.2012. In the meantime, a report be called from the Presiding Officer, Civil Judge Class-II, Katni before whom civil suit no.91- A/2005 (New No.36-A/2011) is pending, explaining why in spite of specific order dated 14.5.2010 in M.C.C.No.1952/2007 for deciding the case within a period of one year, the suit could not be decided. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Presiding Officer by Fax ...
R.K.Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
W.P. No.2889/2011 (s) 20.6.2012 Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv. for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Deependra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Challenging the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Collector exercising the powers of statutory authority under the Census Act, 1948 and suspend the petitioner for dereliction in the matter of discharging duties with regard to census work, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The only ground of challenge is that petitioner is an employee of Municipal Council and therefore, the Collector has no authority to suspend the petitioner. Shri Deependra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 points out that when an employee is performing a duty of Census work under the Census Act 1948 then the Collector, i.e. the District Census Officer is entitled to take action against the petitioner. Therefore, it is stated that on the grounds raised indulgence into the matte...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »