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.
Satpuda Construction Pvt. Ltd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
W.P.No.1468/2013 30.1.2013: Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner has been granted a mining lease for the area in question as is evident from the mining lease Annexure P/2 dated 7.2.2003. The lease Annexure P/2 is for a period from 7.2.2003 upto 6.2.2013. As the mining lease was to expire on 6.2.2013 petitioner vide Annexure P/3 submitted an application for renewal in accordance to the provisions of M.P.Minot Minerals Rules, 1996 along with requisite fee. Grievance of the petitioner is that the mining lease is to expire on 6.2.2013 and till date no decision has been taken on the application for renewal submitted. Accordingly seeking direction to the competent authority to decide the application, this writ petition has been filed. Having heard Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice,...
Dr. Shiv Kumar Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Writ Petition No. 1138 Of 2013 30.1.2013 Shri Dileep Kapse, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Vide this petition, petitioner, an Assistant Ayurved Medical Medical Officer, Panna being No. satisfied with the order dated 22.11.2012 has filed this petition seeking a direction to respondents to consider his claim for grant of pay scale of 50008000 in place of 40006000 which has been granted by said order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred a representation on 3.12.2012, which is pending consideration. It is accordingly contended that the respondents may be directed to dwell upon the representation filed by the petitioner and pass a reasoned and cogent order. In view of above submission and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter the petition is disposed of with a directi...
Mazhar Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
WP No.1272/13 30.1.13. Shri R.K.Patel, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Vivek Agarwal, learned GA for respondents. It is submitted by Shri Agarwal that he has received instructions from the respondents that the Polytechnic College, Nasrullaganj not has been shifted to a rented accommodation for two subjects, namely, Electronics Telecommunication and Computer Science with infrastructure. It is submitted that not the petitioner can prosecute his studies at Nasrullaganj where he was given admission. It is also submitted by Shri Agarwal that he may be allowed a weeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 13th of February, 2013. The petitioner not can continue his education at Nasrullaganj in the subject for which he was given admission. Accordingly, earlier order is modified. C.c.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Judge. Jk....
Sushil Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 30/1/2013 Shri Y.P.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate for the respondent /State. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking quashment of FIR lodged by the Junior Supply Officer at Crime No.128/08 for the offence under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodity Act against the petitioner. Let case diary be called for. In alternative copy of the petition along with Annexures also be made available to the arguing counsel for the State. List the matter in the week commencing from 25/2/2013 for consideration of stay application. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
Dayashankar Sharma Vs. Lalita Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Cr.R.No.91 o30. 01.13 Shri Pranay Verma, counsel for the applicant. While arguing the case on the question of default regarding maintainability of this revision raised by the office, he argued that the impugned order has been passed by the revisional court in Cr.R.No.274/11 filed by the respondent No.1 herein against the applicant along with Cr.R.No.64/12, 65/12,66/12 and 186/12 filed by the applicant herein against the present respondents whereby all the revisions filed by the present applicant have been dismissed and Cr.R No.274/11 filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the case was remitted back to the trial court with some direction and applicant has come to this court against such part of the impugned order whereby the revision of the respondents bearing No.274/11 has been allowed. He further said that in view of the existing legal position after allowing the revision of the respondents by the subordinate revisional court, the applicant has right to file the revision against suc...
Prakash Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Criminal Revision No.140 o30. 01.2013 Shri Anil Khare learned Sr.Adv assisted by Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, learned PL for respondent-State. Heard on the question of admission. Keeping in view the arguments advanced, after perusing the impugned judgment, I have found some circumstance in the same, which requires consideration at the stage of revision, hence this revision is admitted for final hearing. Learned PL has taken notice of this admission, hence no further notice is required in this regard. Records of both the courts below be requisitioned within one month and case be listed thereafter for final hearing in due course. Also heard on IA No.2058/13, this is an application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicant as he has been convicted under Section 304-A of IPC for one years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-. Although he has been convicted under Section 279 and 337 of IPC also but no separate sentence has be...
Ganon Dunkerley and Company Ltd. Vs. Additional Labour Commissioner Cu ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
W.P.No.20567/2012 30.01.2013 Shri Ajay Kumar Tandon with Shri Uttam Maheshwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause why this petition be not admitted/finally disposed of. Process fee within a period of one week by R.A.D.Notices be made returnable within 6 weeks. Apart from this, Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General shall also seek instructions from the respondent, and if required, to file response. Ad-interim writ: Till next date of hearing, subject to hearing the other side, it is directed that on deposit of 50% of the demand raised against the petitioner vide order Annexure P-4 dated 23.01.2008 in Order No.2/2008 by the Deputy Commissioner, within a period of two weeks from today, recovery of remaining amount from the petitioner, shall remain stayed. Be listed for further consideration on the prayer of ad-interim writ on 20.03.2013. C.C.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Sidd...
NitIn Kumar Bajpai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
R.P.No.880/2012 (Nitin Kumar Bajpai versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 30.01.2013 Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, on the question of admission. The applicant has filed this application for review of the order passed by this Court on 3.2.2012 in W.P No.1467/2012. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that while disposing of W.P No.1467/2012 by order dated 3.2.2012 the applicant/petitioner has not been granted liberty to assail the impugned recovery order as well as for refixation by filing an appropriate representation and, therefore, clarification in that regard be issued. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and observing that the order dated 3.2.2012 passed in W.P No.1467/2012 was passed on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Court, to the limited extent as stated above, is allowed and it is observed that the applicant shall also ...
Dr. Brijesh Kumar Jatav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 30/1/2013 Dr. Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate for the respondent /State. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.67/13 at Police Station Katni under Sections 506, 509,34 of IPC against the petitioner. Let case diary be called for and list the matter in the week commencing from 25.2.13. In view of the fact that on 14.1.13 only, duty hours of respondent No.2 has been increased six days after that on 20.1.13, FIR was lodged further proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of listing of the matter. CC as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) JUDGE dcs/-...
Govind Prasad Agrawal Vs. Smt. Renu Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.3881/2012 30/1/2013 Shri V.C.Rai, counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Renu Agarwal, Advocate respondent present in person. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking quashment of criminal case No.243/2009 pending in the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur under Sections 494 read with 120-B of IPC initiated on the basis of complaint of Respondent. On 25.3.2008 respondent preferred private complaint against the petitioners and two others alleging that her husband Sanjay Agarwal (Co.accused) in December 2007 married with Sheetal Agarwal in Village Kamrdi Maharashtra without seeking divorce from her. Petitioners being father, mother, brother, sister and brother-in-law (husband of sister) have played an important role in aforesaid second illegal marriage between Sanjay Agarwal and Sheetal Agarwal (co-accused).Hence, they are liable to be convicted under Sections 494 read with Section 120-B of IPC. According to the petitioneRs.along with the aforesaid complaint, list ...