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.
Ashfaq HussaIn Vs. Sushil
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
1 M. Cr.C.NO.3594/2009 25.2.2013. Shri Wakil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding of Criminal Case No.2381/2008 pending in the Court of JMFC Sagar, arising out of the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant and JMFC Sagar has taken the cognizance under Section 406 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner and Sarafat Hussain. It has been alleged by the complainant that Sarafat Hussain had entered into an agreement by which the truck owned by the petitioner Ashfaq Hussain was transferred to the complainant and the consideration of Rs.91,000/- has been made by the complainant on 10.11.2000. It is further alleged that when the complainant insisted for transfer of that truck in the RTO office then Safafat Hussain avoided and on 12.8.2003 when the complainant went to the house of Sarafat Khan with the witness of agreement and demanded back his property or to transfer the truck in h...
Sati Anusuiya Mata High School Devi Teh. Sausar Chhindwara Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.2872/2013 25.2.2013 Shri Dinesh Updhayay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. The controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court at Gwalior Bench wehrein while allowing the writ petiiton against the order of recalling of orders of taking over of school of the society like petitioner the impugned order has been quashed. The order of writ court was affirmed by the Division Bench. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though a representation on the stregth of such a decision has been made but the same has not yet been decided, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 5.3.2012 vide Annexure P-10 in terms of the law laid down in the case of Shrimant Madhavrao Scindia Higher Secondary School...
Vivek Rajpoot Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
M.C.C.No.1059/2012 25.2.2013 Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shreyas Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on I.a.No.10349/2012, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Considering the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit and which is not controverted, the delay in filing the M.C.C.is condoned. Accordingly, the I.A.is allowed. Heard on admission. For the reasons recorded in the application for restoration of W.P.No.11716/2010, the same is allowed. Let the writ petition be restored in its original number and be listed before the appropriate bench for hearing. M.C.C.stands disposed of. (K.K.Trivedi) JUDGE P/...
Doodhnath Adiwasi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.757/2013 25/02/2013 Shri Shivam Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 8/11/12 in connection with Crime No.292/12 registered at P.S.Hanumana, District Rewa for the offence punishable under sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that there is no prima facie case in regard to section 307 of IPC. Similarly placed Co.accused Pankaj Tripathi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 7/02/13 passed in M.Cr.C.No.14729/2012. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shaquir Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Cr.R.No.310/2013 25.2.2013 Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State. None for the respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant/State has challenged the order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the learned Third Upper Sessions Judge, Raisen in Criminal Revision No.2/2013 whereby the truck not MP09 HF 427.was given to the respondent on supurdginama whereas it was seized under various Acts like M.P.Pashu Sanrakshan Adhiniyam and M.P.Gouvansh Pratished Adhiniyam. An immovable vehicle cannot be kept with th Police without any reason. If it is so kept, it may be destroyed due to weather circumstances. It is observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that no intimation of confiscation proceedings are given by the concerned Magistrate which is mandatory to be given. Under such circumstances, it would be proper that the respondent be informed about the confiscation proceedings and the District Magistrate would be entitled to summon the vehicle which was given on supurdginama to t...
Smt. Kusum Rajawat Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.9578/2010 Smt. Kusum Rajawat Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri K.N. Pethia, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajas Pohankar, learned Counsel for the respondents. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (25.02.2013) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the rejection order dated 02.04.2004 passed by respondent No.3 by which it is communicated to the petitioner that her claim for grant of family pension cannot be considered. It is contended that the son of the petitioner entered in the services of the M.P. Electricity Board in the year 1974 as Office Assistant Grade- III. He was made to work in the office of Chief Computer Process & Operation. The son of the petitioner wa...
Radhaswami Institute of Technology Vs. All India Council for Technical ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
WP No.2621/13 25.02.13. Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for respondents. Considering the controveRs.involved in this case, we direct Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel to take notice on behalf of respondents. Shri Sharma accepts notice on behalf of respondents. IA No.2880/13 seeking amendment based on subsequent events. Considering the reasons stated in the application and to the fact that this application is filed because of subsequent events, prayer made in the application is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to amend the petition within five working days and to serve a copy of amended petition to Shri Sharma within the aforesaid period. Shri Sharma prays ten days time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. During this period, petitioner is permitted to submit its application for extension of the recognition 2 for the academic session 2013-14 along with requisite fees and documents, if any, which shall be received by the...
Vishnu Prasad Patel Vs. General Manager
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
WRIT PETITION No.1999/20125. 02.2013 Shri Suyash Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajas Pohankar, learned Counsel for the respondents. A response has been filed by the respondents after obtaining instructions. It is contended in the reply that the service book of the petitioner was prepared at the relevant time mentioning the date of birth and, therefore, it cannot be said that declaration recorded in the service book is incorrect. However, it is not in dispute that only the age of the petitioner was recorded on the date when the service book was prepared mentioning that the petitioner was 25 years as on 18.02.1978. There is nothing indicated as to whether any enquiry with respect to the claim made by the petitioner in respect of date of birth was conducted by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the date of birth as was reflected in his official documents was not taken note of, though the same tallies with the date of birth mentioned in other certif...
Jamuna Prasad Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Cr.R.No.760/1999 25.2.2013 Shri Siddharth Datt, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1/State. None for the remaining respondents. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 6.2.1999 passed by JMFC, Harda in Criminal Case No.293 of 1995 whereby the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under section 447, 294 and 506 Part II of I.P.C.The prosecution's case in short is that, on the report lodged by the complainant/the applicant, a trial was initiated against the respondents no.2 to 4 for the aforesaid offences. After giving several opportunities the complainant as well as the other witnesses did not appear before the trial Court and therefore, in the light of the judgment dated 8.10.1988 passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajdev Sharma versus State of Bihar. AIR 199.SC 352.the trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution and acquitted the res...
Dvarka Baghele Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.2155/2013 Dvarka Baghele & others State of M.P.& others 25.2.2013 Shri Shakti Kumar Soni, counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Agarwal, G.A., for respondent no.1. Shri K.K.Singh, counsel for respondent no.2. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, counsel for respondent no.3. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that respondent no.3 is ready to declare the results of petitioners within a period of fifteen days from today. The petitioners have sought following reliefs in this petition :- (i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to summon the record relating to the subject matter of the petition. (ii) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners for B.Ed. (Science) for the Academic Session 2007-2008. It is, therefore, prayed that, the present petition be disposed in terms of decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of AdaRs.Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »