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.
Ganesh Vs. Lakhanlal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Cr.R.No.1263/2012 27.2.2013 Shri K.S.Rajput, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent no.1. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.2/State. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Criminal Revision No.118/2011 whereby the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the JMFC, Burhanpur (Shri A.Jain) in Criminal Case No.2433/2009 was set aside and application filed by the respondent no.1 under Sections 45 and 73 of Evidence Act was accepted. The respondent no.1 has filed a criminal complaint against the applicant under Sections 406, 418, 468 of I.P.C.The complainant has moved an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act that some documents may be examined by the handwriting expert. The application was dismissed by the trial Court and thereafter, it was accepted by the revisionary Court. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant it ap...
Dr. K.K. Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2453/20127. 02.2013 Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents-State, on advance copy. It is contended that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.16908/2012 (Dr. S.P.Dubey versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & others).disposed of finally on 12.10.2012. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner that identically the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of 6th Pay Commission was considered, fixation was already done and the recommendations were sent by the Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur on 05.08.2011 but final orders have not been passed by the respondent- State though the scheme made by the U.G.C.has been fully approved and accepted by the respondents. It is not disputed by learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 that the aforesaid writ petition has been disposed of and the action is b...
Naeem Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1271/2013 27.2.2013 Shri A.K.Jain, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.1.2013 and the applicant did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Learned Government Advocate has opposed the application. Since applicant has already been released on ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court and there is no report that he misused the liberty granted to him, the order dated 29.1.2013 is hereby made absolute for a period of 60 days only. In the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may apply for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court, in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules. (G.S.Solanki) Judge PB...
Tilakdhari Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WRIT PETITION No.2895/20127. 02.2013 Shri Ajeet Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners have 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 the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mention...
D.K. Markam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
Writ Petition No.2742/2013 27.02.2013 Mr.Ajay Raizada, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks quashment of order of suspension dated 05.08.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 05.08.2011. It is further submitted that a Bench of this Court by order dated 04.12.2012 has stayed the proceeding in the departmental enquiry, which was initiated against the petitioner. However, the petitioner still continues under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has approached the Competent Authority by submitting a representation contained in Annexure P/7 for revocation of order of suspension. However, the same has failed to evoke any response. It is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the same. O...
Uttam Chandra JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1899/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 24.12.2012 in connection with Crime No.643/2012 registered at P.S.Bairasiya, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 302/34, 120-B of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not the main accused of committing the murder of Ajay Agrawal, who is stated to have been murdered by Man Singh and Lakhan Singh. It is alleged against the applicant that he entered into conspiracy with the main accused for committing murder of Ajay Agrawal, who was son of co-accused Ramesh Chand Agrawal and the applicant was Munim of co-accused Ramesh Chand Agrawal. The applicant has been made accused on the basis of disclosure stateme...
Darbari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2120/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Anand Chawla, counsel for the applicant. Shri Gitesh Singh Thakur, GA for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 10.11.2012 in connection with Crime No.494/2012 registered at Police Station Kareli District Narsinghpur for offence punishable under Sections 8/20 of N.D.P.S.Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicant that from his possession 10 kg. of contraband article (Ganja) has been seized. It is further submitted that co-accused Manish Sahu has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 5.2.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.1193/2013. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the content...
Prakash Wadhwani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
WP No.2498/2013. 27.02.2013 Shri Amit Singh, Adv. For the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, G.A appears for State and accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Heard.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner on the following relilefs:1. To issue a wirt in nature of certiorari and be pleased toquash order dated 02.02.2013 passed by respondent no.4.2. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondents be directed to pay the bills regularly without the condition of procurement of not from Mining Department.3. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, the respondents be directed to refund all the amount illegally deducted and detained under the head of royalty of minerals consumed.4. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus respondents be directed to implement the judgment already passed by this Hon'ble Court.5. Any other relilef/relilefs order/orders, direction/directions which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper m...
Gouli and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH Criminal Appeal No.541/2003 1. Gauli, s/o Brajlal Gond, aged 29 years.2. Balwant, s/o Brajlal Gond, aged 35 years.3. Annu @ Badar Singh, s/o Jugne, aged 23 years.4. Chunnu, s/o Lal Singh Gond, aged 19 years. All residents of Village Ghodawadi Kala, PS Damua, district Chhindwara, M.P. Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant: Smt. Durgesh Gupta, Advocate. For the State: Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing:21. 02/2013 Date of Judgment:27. 02/2013 JUDGMENT Per...
Smt.Shanta Bai Vs. Kundlik
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
(1) Civil Revision No.446/2006 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Civil Revision No.446 / 2006 Applicants :1. Smt. Shanta Bai, W/o. Kisan Bankar, Occupation Agriculture, Sarpanch 2. Kisan S/o. Lahya Bankar, Both R/o. Birul Bazar, Tehsil Multai, District Betul (M.P.) Vs. Respondents :1. Kundlik, S/o. Kighave, Panch, R/o. Birul Bazar Tehsil Multai District Betul (M.P.) 2. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tehsil Multai, District Betul (M.P.).3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Prabhat Pattan, Tehsil Multai, District Betul (M.P.) 4. The State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Collector Betul, District Betul (M.P.) _________________________________________________________ Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for applicants. None for respondent no.1. Shri Akhilesh Singh, Panel Lawyer for respondents no.2 to 4. _________________________________________________________ ORDER (27/02/2013) This revision applicatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »