Madhya Pradesh Court October 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.
Sanjay Rawat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10515/2013 07.10.2013 Shri Arvind Pathak, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Heard on admission. The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to quash the FIR dated 27.7.2013 registered as Crime No.268/13 with Police Station Naogaon, District Chhatarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter it would be referred as 'the Act').The prosecution's case, in short is that, the applicant was running a ration shop at village Keeratpura. An inspection was done by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Keeratpura on 10.5.2013 at about 5:30 p.m.alongwith the officers of the Food Department. It was found that 160 sacks of wheat were kept in a separate house. Though, those sacks of wheat were issued to the applicant for ration shop but the applicant could not produce the stock and distribution register. He did not distribute the kerosene to the various consumers in th...
Rajendra Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16715/2013 1 07.10.2013 Shri S.K.Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of M.P.And others [2012 (2) MPLJ605, wherein only this much was directed that the respondents are directed to examine the requirement of refixation of honorarium in the present days of price hike. It is contended that a writ petition was earlier filed by the said person which was decided and subsequently the order passed in the said writ petition was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as also in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, though the writ petition filed by Gopal Chawla and others (supra) subsequently w...
M/S Qoign Builders Vs. Ramesh Chandra Kaushail
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
1 W.P. No.17357 of 2013 7.10.2013 Shri Anoop Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 30.3.13 (Annex.P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue Gwalior in Revision No.1996-PBR/2012 affirming the order dated 23.4.12 passed by the Upper Collector, Bhopal in Revision No.23/Revision/11-12 whereby the Collector has remitted back the matter to the Tehsildar to hold the proceedings of section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (in short `the Code') filed by respondent No.1 and 2 in accordance with the procedure.2. While affirming the order, the Board of Revenue has also observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the objections in the proceedings of section 250 of the Code against the demarcation carried out earlier on which the impugned proceedings of section 250 of the Code is based.3. Having heard the counsel, I h...
Sitaram Pathak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
W.P.No.15954 of 2013 Sitaram Pathak vs The State of M.P.and others 07/10/2013 Shri Nitin Pandharkar and Shri P.K.Asati, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record pertaining to the case from the Officer of the respondents No.1 to 5 and be further pleased to command the respondents to remove illegal constructions and illegal encroachment made by the respondents No.6 and 7 in violation of mandatory provisions and be further pleased to command the respondents No.1 to 5 to take suitable penal action against respondents No.6 and 7 to punish them for their illegal act, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief/order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper also be passed in favour of the petitioner, in the ends of justice. 2. The case of the petitioner is that at village Tillimafi, Tahsi...
Smt. Savitri Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16750/2013 1 07.10.2013 Shri Shrikant Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Petitioner is the legal representative of deceased employee. Stating that the husband of the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive t...
Patiram Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
1 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14 OF1998APPELLANT: Patiram S/o Kuppakaraku aged about 30 years, R/o Kasmarkhandi, P.S. Mahta, Tahsil and District Betul (MP) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Mahta, Tahsil and District Betul (MP) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P.R. Bhave, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment reserved on :26. 07.2013 Judgment delivered on :07. 10.2013 (JUDGMENT) In this appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the accused., has called in question the soundness of the judg...
Kanhaiyalal Vs. Maniram Soni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Writ Petition No.17644/2013 07.10.2013 Shri Hemant Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.2013 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, in Co.No.104-A/2008, whereby opportunity to adduce the evidence to the petitioner - defendant No.1 has been closed. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as of the impugned order and other papers placed on record argued that only on account of non depositing the cost within the prescribed period directed by this court in F.A.No.732/2007, vide judgment dated 18.2.2013, the trial court has closed his right to adduce the evidence. In continuation he said that in the aforesaid fiRs.appeal, the time limit to deposit cost was fixed upto 30th March 2013 but when the petitioner could not deposit the same on which he prayed before the trial court for adjournment on various...
Naseem Fatima Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16768/2013 1 07.10.2013 Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Petitioner is the legal representative of deceased employee. Stating that the sister of the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to deri...
Smt. Pyari Devi Vs. Smt. Lalli Devi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Writ Petition No.3954/2010 07.10.2013 Shri Niraj Asar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2- A to 2-D and 3. Shri R.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.21. Shri S.M.Lal, Learned Govt. Adv for respondent No.31. None for the other served respondents. It is apparent from the record that some of the respondents between 4 to 30 are not served. In the available circumstances, question raised in this petition could be adjudicated effectively only in presence of the petitioners and the respondent No.1 - plaintiff and the presence of other unserved respondents are not required. Consequently, notices against other unserved respondents are hereby dispensed with, if the same are not served. Also heard on IA No.12242/13, this is an application on behalf of respondent No.1 for early hearing of this petition. For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and the petition is taken up for hearing. In the available circumstances...
Manmohan Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1372/2011 7/10/2013 Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. They are heard on I.A.No.15105/12, which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Manmohan Rai. The fiRs.application (I.A.No.12185/2011) was dismissed as withdrawn on 21/11/2011. Appellant stand convicted for the offence punishable under sections 364-A read with sections 120-B & 368 of IPC and has been sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the allegation against him is that in his house the abductee Deepak Agrawal (PW-8) was kept but after the arrest of this appellant he was not putforth for Test Identification Parade. Further, it is submitted by him that in the dock identification also he has not been identified by the abduc...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »