Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
iklakh Khan Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
1 Cr.A. No.922/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.922/2003 Iklakh Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri L.N. Sakle, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Passed on 16th day of July, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 31.5.2003 in S.T. No.447/2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Harda, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced for three years' R.I. with fine of `25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo for 1 years S.I. i...
Kamala Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
1 W.A.No.581/2012 Kamala Bai & others State of M.P.& others 16.7.2012 Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Counsel for appellants. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for respondents/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5598/12 by which ad interim writ granted earlier has been vacated. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the matter relates to the construction of dam and without deciding objection of the appellants under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition proceedings were finalised. It was submitted that the appellants are having very good case before the writ Court and the ad interim writ granted earlier by the writ Court on 4.5.2012 ought to have been continued. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for State submitted that the case is fixed for hearing today and the appellants may argue the case today and respondents shall not seek any adjournment in the matter. It was further submitted by Shri Kaurav that State ...
Bank of India Vs. VipIn Gaur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
16.07.2012. Shri V.S.Shroti, Senior Advocate, with Shri Ashish Shroti for the applicants. Shri Anshuman Singh for the non-applicant No.1. This application has been filed for review of an order passed by this Court on 17.4.2012, in W.P.No.3236/2009. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the review application is filed mainly on the ground that this Court has indicated in the order that admittedly the entire amount taken on loan by the original petitioner alongwith interest has been paid and, therefore, nothing further is payable. By filing certain statement of accounts, the Bank has tried to indicate to this Court that the entire interest amount has not been paid and, therefore, the order be recalled. Even though Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the original petitioner/non-applicant No.1 Vipin Gaur, emphasized that the entire amount of interest has been paid, therefore, no case is made out for review, I am of the considered view that this Court decided t...
M/S Kapisur Traders Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Kehar Singh Vs. Durjan Singh Gond
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :9409. of 2012 Kehar Singh - V/s - Durjan Singh Gond Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Verma, counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 16/07/2012 Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the compensation awarded for considering an application submitted for setting aside an ex-parte award, petitioner has approached this Court. 2- Records indicate that due to certain injuries sustained respondent filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Narsinghpur and an ex-parte award has been passed. Seeking setting aside of the ex-parte award, an applicat...
Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad Vs. the Income Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
W.P.No.4165 o16. 7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for the following relief this petition was filed : (i) to direct stay of recovery of demand for AY 2008-09 till the decision of petitioner's stay application by ITAT. (ii) To direct respondent no.1 to adjust the amount of Rs.10 lacs with interest u/s 244A which was paid in 2005-06 which is refundable to the petitioner because of decision of ITAT in 2005-06. (iii) To direct respondent no.4 to decide the stay application and appeal of the petitioner within a certain time frame; & (iv) To issue any other writ or order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted by Shri Agrawal that in the reply the respondents have stated that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner as the appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending and in view of t...
Devendra Tiwari Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.417 OF 199.Devendra Tiwari. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 16th day of July, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21/2/1997 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge Camp Rehli District Sagar in ST No.311/1994 whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. He has to undergo six months' imprisonment in default of payment of fine.2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 3.9...
Shri Mahila Gruh Udyog Lijjat Papad Vs. the Income Tax Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
W.P.No.4166 o16. 7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for the following relief this petition was filed : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 13.12.2011 (P/1).7.2 to direct the respondent no.1, 2 & 3 to decide the stay application of the petitioner; 7.3 to direct respondent no.3 to hear the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously; & 7.4 to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case to give relief to the petitioner. It is submitted by Shri Agrawal that in the reply the respondents have stated that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner as the appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending and in view of the stand taken by the respondents in the return, petitioner be permitted to withdraw this petition. Shri Lal has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the ...
M/S Mudar HusaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Shambhudayal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
1 W.P.No.9862/2012 16.7.2012 Shri Riaz Mohammad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Petitioner is working as a daily wages employee and claims that he is entitled to work upto the age of 62 years and his retirement at the age of 60 years is unsustainable. Interference into the matter is sought for on the ground that a Full Bench of this Court has directed for continuing employees like the petitioner in service upto the age of 62 yeaRs.The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is in the case of Vishnu Mutiya and others versus State of M.P.and others 2006(1) MPLJ 2 . The question with regard to entitlement of the daily wages employee to work upto the age of 62 years and benefit to be granted to such employees in accordance to law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra) is already considered and rejected by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Badri Prasad versus State of M.P.- 2011(4) MPLJ ...
- ‹ Prev
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Next ›
- Last »