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.
Yadunath Gosai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Writ Petition No :461. / 2013 Yadunath Gosai and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 23.01.2013. Shri Prabhakar Singh for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Against the order passed by Commissioner, Rewa as contained in Annexure P/1 dated 18.10.2012, petitioners have a remedy of filing revision before the Board of Revenue under section 50 and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the aforesaid remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue as indicated hereinabove, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
M/S Madhya Pradesh Rajya Powerloom Bunkar Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Bur ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
WP No.21387 of 2012. 23.1.2013. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter is squarely covered by an order passed by this court in M/s Surjeet Auto Agency versus State of M.P.& ORS.(2012) 20 STJ 37.and the matter may be disposed of finally in terms of the aforesaid order. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection if the matter is finally disposed of in the light of the judgment of this Court in M/s Surjeet Auto Agency. In view of the aforesaid the matter is heard finally. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was levied with the entry tax for the period 2008-09. Petitioner was levied with the entry tax to the tune of Rs.20,82,049/-. The appeal preferred against the order was also dismissed vide order dt.28.2.2011 (Annexure-P/2).Thereafter petitioner moved an application for settlement (Annexure-P/3) before the respondent No.3 which is stated to be ...
Kamlesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1/10. 23.1.2013. Shri H.S.Dubey with Shri Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant No.3. Shri G.S.Thakur, learned PL for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.1201/13, an application filed on behalf of the appellant No.3, Vijay @ Chhotu for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail for a temporary period to attend and participate the marriage of younger brother Ajay @ Baddu, which is scheduled on 30th of January, 2013 at Shahdol. The invitation card is also annexed with IA. According to which programme of the marriage will begun from 24th of January, 2013 and reception is scheduled on 1st of February, 2013. IA is also supported by an affidavit of aforesaid younger brother of the appellant No.3. It is noted that his earlier three applications for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail have been dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed vide orders dated 13.5.2010, 12.10.2010 and 11.1.2013, and thereafter aforesaid IA is preferred for su...
Teekaram Vs. Midiya Bai (D) Lrs Phoolchandra Mali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
S.A.No.393/2011 (Teekaram Vs.Phoolchandra Mali and otheRs.23.01.2013 Heard Shri Deepak Ukhade, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 03.01.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.23-A/10 by 4th Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2008 passed in Civil Suit No.14-A/04 by the Civil Judge Class-II, Loundi, District Chhatarpur wherein the suit filed by the respondent Midiya Bai was partly decreed to the extent of declaring adoption deed dated 01.08.1989 and mutation proceedings dated 10.01.1996 in his name to be null and void while dismissing her claim and suit to the extent of claiming declaration of title in respect of the disputed land on account of the fact that she had not claimed any relief of possession, has been affirmed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff...
Rishi Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1 Writ Petition No.1069/2013 23.01.2013 Shri Shreyas Dubey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents by registered post with A/d, on payment of process fee within three working days. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General waives notice on behalf of respondents/State. Also heard on the question of interim relief. At this stage, we are not inclined to grant injunction restraining respondents no.7 to 10 from construction. However, it is made clear that any further construction made shall be at their own risk as to cost and consequences. Let the petition be listed after two weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge HS...
Divya Mishra Vs. Raghavendra Tripathi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
M.Cr.C No.12255 o23. 01.13 Shri Kapil Patwardhan, counsel for the applicant. The applicant/complaint has filed this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by JMFC, Jabalpur in Criminal Complaint Case No.9553/09 in which respondent has been acquitted from the charge of section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Applicant's counsel does not dispute the legal position that against acquittal in a private complaint, the remedy to file appropriate petition for grant of leave to appeal under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C, is available and, in such premises, instead the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the M.Cr.C.Under section 378(4) could be entertained by this court. In continuation, he said that although he may have filed the application for converting this petition into petition under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C but in pendency of the present petition the sole respondent passed away and, in such premises, such applic...
Ashok Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Second Appeal No.1082/08 ( Ashok Kumar ...Vs..The State of M.P.& Another ) 23-01-2013 Heard Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff on the question of admission. Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2008 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in C.A.No.34-A/07, and the judgment and decree dated 25.8.07 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Bina District Sagar, in C.S.No.138-A/04 dismissing the suit for declaration and recovery of possession filed by the appellant/plaintiff in respect of two shops alleged to have been constructed by the appellant on khaSr.No.405, situated at Bina Itawa, District Sagar. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he had purchased a land of khaSr.No.405/3 area 540 sq feet from one Bhagirath on 20.5.86 and since thereafter the appellant is in possession of the same. It is stated that appellant had constructed two shops on the said ...
Umesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Smt. Chandralata Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1 F.A.No.252/1990 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K.Shrivastava Civil Revision No.391/2012 APPLICANT: Umesh Kumar Singhal, S/o Late Anandilal Singhal, aged about 45 yeaRs.R/o 13, Lakherapura, Bhopal (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: Smt Chandrakala Gupta, W/o Late Prem Narayan Gupta, aged about 65 yeaRs.R/o 23 Lakherapura, Bhopal M.P.Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant Shri A.P.Shroti learned counsel for the respondent. ORDER (23.01.2013) 1. This revision application under Section 23-E of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act) has been filed by the tenant against the impugned order dated 12.10.2012, passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal whereby the application of applicant/tenant to amend the written statement has been rejected. 2 F.A.No.252/1990 2. On bare perusal of the amendment application, this court finds that on being learnt by the applicant/tenant that the sons of the respondent are ca...
Alok Pratap Singh Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
W.P.No.2802/2004 23.01.2013 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Himanshu Mishra, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the State of M.P.Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Kunal Thakre and MRS.Devika Singh, Advocates for respondent No.4. Shri Ajay Gupta and Shri Rajeev Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.6. Shri Nitin Sambre with Shri Ambrish Joshi, Advocate for State of Maharashtra. Shri Sanjay Sanyal, Advocate for Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Shri Manot Sharma, Shri Harmeet Ruprah and Shri Pramod Sahu, Advocates for the intervenORS.Learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that S.L.P.(Civil) No.9874/2012 was heard by the Apex Court on 03.01.2013 and by passing an order the case was fixed for hearing on today itself i.e.23.01.2013. It is also intimated that today the case has been adjourned for 28.01.2013. It is prayed that the matter may be...
Bhuria and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH Criminal Appeal No.181/2004 1. Bhuria, s/o Kallu Agnihotri, aged about 37 years.2. Chuttu, s/o Gilla Shukla, aged about 35 years.3. Abbu, s/o Kallu Agnihotri, aged about 33 years.4. Ramsharan, s/o Kallu, aged about 47 years.5. Natthu, s/o Gilla Shukla, aged about 41 years.6. Ramvishal, s/o Raghunandan, aged about 60 years.7. Prakash, s/o Kallu Agnihotri, aged about 38 years.8. Chhota, s/o Raghunandan, aged 37 years.9. Mahendra, s/o Ram Vishal, aged about 31 years. All agriculturists, r/o village Bansia, P.S. Nehra, District Chhatarpur, M.P. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh through the S.H.O., P.S. Chandla, District Chhatarpur, M.P. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants 1 to 7 & 9: Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate. For Appellant No.8: Shri Manot Mishra, Advocate For the State: Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For the complainant: Shri Gitesh Singh Thakur,...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »