Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Razia Sultana Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8959/2012 5.2.2013 Shri Manish Jain, Adv.for the petitioner. Shri V.K.Lakhera, PL for the State. The petitioner has filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by order dated 13.6.2012 passed by learned learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, Balaghat in Criminal Revision No.40/2010 confirming the order of confiscation of vehicle C.G.04-ZC-4874 dated 15.9.2009 passed by learned Commissioner (Excise) in Crime No.109/2008 registered at P.S.Katangi for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized in the case registered against Faim, Santosh and Madhur as 60 liters of country made liquor was seized from them. Earlier order of seizure passed by the Collector was quashed and case was remanded for giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner, a...
Nanhelal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
M.Cr.C No. 819 Of 2013 5.2.2013 Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate for respondent State. Heard. Alleging false implication for an offence under Sections 376 (2) (g), 363 and 366/34 Indian Penal Code, applicants seek grant of bail. Apparently, the prosecution is launched against the applicants on the basis of complaint of applicants having abducting the prosecutrix and keeping her in custody whole night and outraging her modesty. Banking upon the statement of prosecutrix made before the police authorities, it is contended on behalf of the applicants that they had no role to play in an offence which is registered against them. It is further contended that the person who is said to have outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix has been extended bail by order dated 18.12.2012. Learned counsel fo...
B.K. Mishra Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
WP 23538.03 Writ Petition No.23538 of 2003 (D.K.Mishra v. State of M.P.and two otheRs.05-02-2013 None for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. Perused the record. Order dated 25-02-1996 is assailed by the petitioner. By the said order petitioner has been inflicted penalty of stoppage of two stagnation allowance accruing on 25-11-1993 and 26-11-1995. The genesis of the order is in a departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner with the issuance of charge sheet on 22-05-1990; whereby, 9 charges were levelled against the petitioner that he in association with Principal of Women Industrial Training Institute, Bhopal, was instrumental in extending admission to certain ineligible candidates in 26 trades in a recruitment which took place during August, 1989. The allegations were that on the basis of note sheet prepared by the petitioner ineligible candidates were selected at the cost of eligible in different categories and trades. The ...
Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
W.P.No.1822/2013 04.02.2013 Shri R.S.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/respondents. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : (i) This Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the bills regularly without the condition of procurement of not from Mining /Department. (ii) This Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent not to deduct the amount of royalty from the running and final bill of the petitioner. (iii) This Honble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund all the amount, if illegally deducted and detained under the head of royalty of minerals consumed. (iv) Any other writ/direction which is deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by an order of thi...
Kammod Vs. Balmukund
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
CIVIL REVISION No.269/20004. 02.2013 None for the applicants, though specifically a direction was issued by this Court on 17.12.2012 to the parties to remain present before the Court for verifying whether any possibility of compromise in the matter is there or not. Shri Pranay Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents along with respondent No.1 is present in the Court. It is stated by learned Counsel for the respondents that the applicants are not interested in any compromise and that is why they have not appeared before this Court. Since even the Counsel for the applicants is not present to prosecute the revision, instead of dismissing the revision, the interim order dated 12.09.2007 is hereby vacated. Let the revision be listed in the month of March, 2013 for final hearing. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Puppal @ Mohd.Sajid Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 Cr.R. No.726/05 & 1096/05 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.726/2005 Puppal alias Mohd. Sajid. -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1096/2005 Chandra Prabha. -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh. In Cr.R.No.726/2005 Shri S.P.Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. In Cr.R.No.1096/2005 Shri A.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 4th day of February, 2013) These are two revisions that arose from two different judgments passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, but such appeals were preferred against the common judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katni on 4.2.2000, and therefore since the facts are the same and the trial was the same, both the revisions are decided by this common or...
Ramnath Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
W.A.No.90/2013 Ramnath Kol State of M.P.& others 4.2.2013 Shri Praveen Dubey, counsel for appellant. Shri Rahul Jain, Dy.A.G., for respondent nos.1 to 3. This appeal is directed against an order dated 15.1.2013 in W.P.No.521/2013, by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against an order dated 2.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa was disposed of finally with a direction to the Commissioner, Rewa to hear and decide the revision expeditiously. The learned Single Judge found that it was against an interlocutory order, while the main revision was pending before the Commissioner, so it was thought proper by the learned Single Judge that in place of entertaining the writ petition the Commissioner may be directed to decide the revision expeditiously. Though the learned counsel appearing for appellant tried to assail the aforesaid order on various grounds, including the ground that if the interim stay is not granted, appellant would suffer irreparably, but we are of the opinion...
NitIn Kumre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.300/2013 4.2.2013 Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri R.K.Nanhorya, counsel for the petitioner. Shri VivekLakhera, PL for the State. Argument heard. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 6.12.2012 passed in S.T.No.59/2012 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (MP) for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that counsel for the petitioner was admitted in the hospital as he was not well and was discharged from the hospital in the morning of 6.12.2012 i.e.on the date of hearing of the case therefore he could not appear in the Court and petitioner has not appeared in the Court because he was busy in treatment of his mother at Bhopal, who was suffering from cancer, therefore learned trial Court has dismissed the exemption application of the petitioner on the ground that for cross-examination of the...
Jabalpur Treasure Island Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Housing and Urban Development Co ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.40/2013 04.02.2013 Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Heard. Issue notice to the respondents by registered post with A/d, on payment of process fee within three days. Notices be made returnable within two weeks. Shri Manot Shahi, Advocate with Shri Priyankush Jain, Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1. Heard on the question of interim relief. After arguing for sometime, Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant would avail the remedy under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Shri Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent will not take any coercive action till 5.2.2013. However, in the interest of justice, we direct that the respondent shall not take any coercive action till the matter is heard and decided on 6.2.2013. The Tribunal shall consider the question of interim relief independently without being influenced by this order. Certified co...
Mumtaz Malik Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.6769/2010 4.2.2013 Shri A. Usmani, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Pratibha Mishra, PL for the State. Arguments heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2010 passed by learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.441/2009 arising out of the order dated 27.6.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Bhopal in R.T.No.10177/2007 whereby the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC alongwith Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC has been framed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the FIR the complainant was beaten by slaps and fists in his shop. An FIR was registered and challan was filed for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC but the learned trial Court has framed the charge for offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC also. At the time of incident, no weapon is said to have been used by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- Next ›
- Last »