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.
Kamlesh Kaurav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
CRR.No.2186/2012 Criminal Revision No.2186/2012 4.1.2013 Shri S.B.Shrivastava, counsel for the applicants. Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in S.T.No.266/2011, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 148, 307 read with section 149, 325 read with section 149, 324 read with section 149, 323 read with section 149 (5 counts) of IPC were framed against the applicants. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the applicants only challenged the charge under section 307 read with section 149 of IPC. Charge under section 307 of IPC is framed for the injuries caused to the victim Sardar Singh Kaurav. It is apparent that no grave injury was found on the head of the victim. No vital part ...
Smt.Narbadiya Bai and ors. Vs. Ramdas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Second Appeal No.1122 / 1998 ( Smt. Narbadiya Bai and another ..Vs.Ram Das & others ) 04-01-2013 Heard Shri P.N.Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20-8-1998 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Shahdol, in C.A.No.24A/97, affirming the judgment and decree dated 26-2-1997, passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Shahdol, in C.S.No.21A/94, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiffs for declaration and partition relating to 1/3rd share of the lands comprising of KhaSr.Nos.48, 91, 92, 96, 164, 243, 298, 308, 309, 310, 351, 366, 423, 424, 473, 516 and 518 total measuring 19.54 acres situated at village Samantpur and KhaSr.Nos.37 and 54 situated at village Kodwar, has been dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiffs that the appellant No.1 is the daughter of Shobhaiya who was the son of the origi...
Madhu Pawar Vs. Gulab Rao Patankar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
WRIT PETITION No.21774/2012 Madhu Pawar versus Gulab Rao Patankar and State of MP 03.01.2013. Shri Sanjay Sanyal for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate, for respondent No.2/State, on advance notice. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 5.12.2012, passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class II, Betul in Civil Suit No.42-A/2012, by which an application filed by the petitioner under section 45 of the Evidence Act, for getting certain document and its signature verified by a hand-writing expert, has been rejected. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit for specific performance of a contract with regard to certain land situated in Village Sawanga in District Betul. Claim of the petitioner is based on certain documents executed in the presence of a notary and after the recording of evidence by the parties, petitioner filed an application seeking verification of the signature in the documents by a...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kaishlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.642/2007 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Keshlal and others --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri S.K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the applicant/State. Shri Shyam Vishwakarma, counsel for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 3rd day of January, 2013) The State has preferred this revision against the order dated 9.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Sihora in S.T. No.413/06, whereby the respondents were discharged from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 306/34 of IPC and case was remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial of the of...
Papa @ Laxmi Kant Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1503 OF 200.Papa @ Laxmi Kant & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Shyam Vishwakarma, Advocate for the appellants No.1 and 2. Shri Ashok Lalwani, Advocate for the appellant No.3. Shri N.K.Mishra, Advocate for the appellant No.4. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 3rd day of January, 2013) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29/7/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Piparia District Hoshangabad in ST No.165/2008, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and each of them was sentenced for two years' RI with fin...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. G.P. Bhargava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
W.A.No.836/2012 03.01.2013 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellants. Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Vikram Johri, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, heard finally. This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed calling in question the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1908/2010(s) as also the order dated 17.5.2012 passed in Review Petition No.450/2012, on the grounds that the learned Single Judge has given the contrary findings in paragraphs 11,12, 13 & 14 of the order, directing refixation of salary of the respondent No.1 in the pay scale of Rs.3,000-4500/- with effect from 1.7.1995 and granting the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- with effect from 1.1.1996. It is contended that while the learned Single Judge has considered the aspect that the responden...
Dayaram Mishra Vs. the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Andors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Dayaram Mishra versus The South Eastern Coal Fields LTD.& ORS.Writ Petition No.6303 3. 1.2013: Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for respondents. Challenging order Annexure P-4 dated 24.7.2000 issued by the General Manager (Industrial Relation) South Eastern Coal Fields LTD.Bilaspur declaring petitioner as 'Persona not Grata' and disallowing him to represent and discuss matter pertaining to workers in the Unit Headquarter and the Company Headquarter at Bilaspur, this writ petition is filed in the year 2000. It is the case of petitioner that he is representative of the registered trade union namely the Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, Johilla Area, which has been sponsoring and representing case of workers and also pointing out illegalities done by various officers of the Company, in view of this with a malafide intention the impugned action was taken. Respondents have filed the return and have brought on record various activ...
Sudhakar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
1 W.P.No.21495/2012(s) W.P.No.21495/2012 03.1.2013 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. By order dated 5.11.2012, the petitioner who was nominated as Jan Shikshak, Janpad Siksha Kendra Beohari, on 27.8.2012 for a period of three yeaRs.has been repatriated. Challenge is on the ground that the repatriation could only be in the event of the happening as is stipulated in Sub Rule 4 of Rule 13 of the M.P.Jan Shiksha Rules, 2003. It is contended that on there being no complaint in respect of working of the petitioner the impugned order is per se, arbitrary and illegal. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a period of 7 days by speed post and be made returnable within a period of 4 weeks. Till next date of hearing, there shall be stay of operation of impugned order dated 5.11.2012 (Annexure P-4).In case petitioner is reliesved in pursuance to the aforesaid order he shall be rejoined as Jan S...
Kandi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1099/2011 Kandi & others VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 3rd day of January, 2013) The applicants have preferred the present revision application against the order dated 25.6.2011 passed by the learned Third Additional Judge to Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T.No.117/2011, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 306 or 306 read with section 34 of IPC were appended against the applicants.2. The prosecution's case, relating to the present revision, in short, is that, the deceased had committed suicide because the applicants...
C.R.Nethan Vs. Shriman Umashankar Gontiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
C.R.Nethan versus Umashankar Gotiya & ORS.Conc. No.1804 3. 1.2013: Applicant in person. Shri Himanshu Verma, learned counsel for respondents. In pursuance to order passed on the last date, respondent Nos.1 & 2 have filed their reply and respondent No.1 is present in person. While disposing of the writ petition on 8.2.2012 it is seen that no notice was issued to respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the writ petition was disposed of without hearing them and without notice to them. not from the reply filed by respondents it is seen that they have submitted the entire claim of the petitioner before the Provident Fund Authority with effect from the year 1997 and prior to that it is stated that no proper Provident Fund Contribution deduction has taken place. Considering the fact that respondents have submitted certain amount as per their calculation and from the return filed by them it is seen that prior to 1997 no recovery has been made, it is for the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to take actio...
- ‹ Prev
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- Next ›
- Last »