Madhya Pradesh Court January 2013 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.
Ram Narayan Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Ram Narayan Tripathi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.7647 29. 1.2013: Shri J.K.Verma and Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Shri Kumresh Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner claims to be the owner of certain land described in para 5.2 of the writ petition. Grievance of the petitioner is that notice Annexure P-4 dated 9.5.2006 has been issued by the M.P.Road Development Corporation asking him to remove certain encroachment made on government land. It is the case of petitioner that a road is being constructed by the M.P.Road Development Corporation and for construction of the road a notice is issued indicating that the encroachment should be removed by the petitioner. Interalia contending that petitioner has not committed any illegality or encroachment as alleged, he is only utilizing/staying in an area which has been purchased by him and denying the allegatio...
Devendra Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.855/2009 Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 29th day of January, 2013) The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge under Madhya Pradesh Nikshepko Ke Hito Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam Jabalpur, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 3(4) and 6(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepko Ke Hito Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam [in short 'the Act...
Shiv Lochan Prasad Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
WP 13297.08 Writ Petition No.13297 of 2008(s) (Shiv lochan Prasad Kol and another v. The State of M.P.and three otheRs.29-01-2013 Shri Sanjeev K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Heard. For the reasons stated in the order passed separately today in Writ Petition No.14648/2008(s) (Harpal Kol v. The State of M.P.and three otheRs.this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent that in case the junior to the petitioners have been allowed to continue, the petitioners should also be considered for promotion from the date their junior was promoted, subject to that there is no other legal hindrance. Let decision be taken within sixty days from the date of communication of this order. The petition is disposed of finally in above terMs.No costs. (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE sc...
Kashi Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No.1915/2011 Kashi Prasad Pandey Vs. State of M.P and three others For the Applicant : Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1 : Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 to 4 : Shri Nitin Karan, Advocate. ORDER (Oral) (29 /01 /2013 ) U.C. Maheshwari,J.The applicant/complainant has directed this revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the IV ASJ.Chhatarpur in ST No.73/11 whereby the application filed on behalf of respondent No.1 under section 319 of the Cr.P.C to implead the respondent No.2 to 4 as co-accused in the impugned trial, has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on dated 1.8.2010 at about 4.20 in the noon, the applicant/complainant Kashi Prasad lodged the Dehati Nalshi to the Police Officer posted at Police Station Bansiya district Chhatarpur contending that at about 1-2 O' Clock in the noon near...
Mangal Singh and ors. Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1 Cr. R. 607/96 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO.607/1996. Mangal Singh and others Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh and another For the applicant : Shri Raj Kamal Chaturvedi, Advocate For the respondent/ State : Shri Punit Shroti, P. L. ORDER (29.1.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The applicants/ accused have preferred this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.1996 passed by 2nd Additional Session Judge, Chhatarpur in S. T. No.247/95, whereby the charge of Section 302/34 in alternate 305/34 of IPC have been framed against each of them.2. As per copy of papers of the charge sheet available on the record on dated 19.3.1995 an information regarding unnatural death of Katta @ Natthu Khan, resident of Munderi was received at P. S. Laundi, District Chhatarpur from some hospital, on which an inquest intimation bearing No.7/95 was registered. In its inquiry on establishing the offence against the applicants herein, the FIR was registered against them for th...
Jemes Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.601/2011 1. Jemes, son of Shri Fox, Aged about 30 years, 2. Jonathan, son of Shri Williams, Aged about 29 years. Both residents of Kingdom of Lisotho (South Africa) .Appellants Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through SHO, Kotwali, District Katni (MP) Respondent ................ Shri Vasant Daniel, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Akshay Namdeo, PL for the respondent/State. ................ JUDGMENT (29/01/2013) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 1/3/2011 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Katni (MP) in ST No.216/2009, whereby each one of the appellants was convicted and sentenced as under : Convicted under Section Sentenced to 420 read with 120B of the undergo imprisonment for 4 years and to IPC pay fine of Rs.25000/- and in default, to suffer imprisonment for 6 months. 465 read with 120B of undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to IPC pay fine of Rs.25000/- and in ...
Dinesh Tiwari Vs. Incharge Officer, Sanchi Milk Sangh,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Dinesh Tiwari versus Incharge Officer & ORS.Writ Petition No.4629 28. 1.2013: Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. As against the impugned order passed by the court of Ist Additional District Judge Shahdol petitioner has remedy of filing Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1-R, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a miscellaneous appeal, as indicated hereinabove, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy of the impugned order Annexure P-5 be returned back to the petitioner on his filing photocopy of the same. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Pankaj Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.2020/2012 Pankaj Pathak..Applicant Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh..Non-applicant For the applicant : Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate For the non-applicant: Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate. ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE U. C. MAHESHWARI ****** ORDER (28.1.2013) The following order of the Court was delivered by : Ajit Singh, J.This revision is directed against the order dated 10.7.2012 passed in Special (Criminal) Case No.15/2005 by the Special Judge (Lokayukt), Jabalpur, whereby he has dismissed the applicants application for discharge.2. G. P. Pathak was posted as Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department. The applicant and co-accused Prashant Pathak are his sons On 21.1.1995 respondent, Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, filed a charge sheet against G. P. Pathak under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention ...
Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. Kanchedilal Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Manot Kumar Gupta versus Kanchedilal Gupta Writ Petition No.980 28. 1.2013: Shri Raghuvansh Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an interlocutory order dated 12.12.2012 Annexure P-1 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Jai Singh Nagar, Shahdol, whereby application for amendment in the plaint filed by respondent/plaintiff has been allowed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of material available on record it is seen that certain typographical error having been emerged in the plaint, application is allowed. Keeping in view the reasons given by the learned court below in allowing the application and considering the totality of circumstances, I see no reason to interfere into the matter, the petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Shoshit Pidit Kalyan Vikas Parishad , Jail Road Rewa Vs. National Coun ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
WP No.14557 of 2012. 28.1.2013. Shri Manot Chansoria for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh for respondents No.1 and 2. This petition is directed against an order dt.18.6.12 (26.6.12) by respondent No.2 by which recognition of the petitioner has been refused. Against this order, an appeal is provided u/s 18 of the N.C.T.E.Act. Petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal against the impugned order, so at this stage, this petition is not entertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an appeal within a period of two weeks from today. Prayer is opposed by Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 on the ground that for filing an appeal, period of 60 days is provided which is already expired and in case the petitioner prefers an appeal, he has to seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, in the i...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »