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.
R.P.Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.741/2013 M.Cr.C.No.882/2013 25.2.2013 Shri Aditya Adhikari and Shri Mrigendra Singh with Shri Hitendra Singh, Advocates for the applicants. Shri Punit Shroti, PL for the State. Shri Ravendra Shukla, Advocate for the objector. These are the fiRs.bail applications filed by the applicants under section 438 of Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.140/2012 registered at P.S.Khajuraho, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 474 of the IPC. As per prosecution, it is alleged that applicant R.P.Singh was CEO of SADA, Khajuraho and one Yatindranath Chaturvedi was alloted Plot No.8 of SADA in the year 1978. A lease agreement was also made in his favour. Since he was unable to deposit the amount of lease agreement, number of notices were issued against him, thereafter, inhis life time, he entered into an agreement and a joint application was made by Yatindranath Chaturvedi and a...
Upendra Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.451/2013 M.Cr.C.No.451/2013 25.2.2013 Shri Rahul Tripathi, counsel for the applicant. Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the application is for extension of time, therefore, it may be heard finally. Prayer is allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has moved an application for extension of time in the order dated 2.11.2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.9925/2012, whereby the bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C.was granted to the applicant. Vide order dated 2.11.2012 time limit of 60 days was fixed, which expired on 1.1.2013. The present application was moved on 8.1.2013 and therefore, it is moved after that order became infructuous. Under such circumstances, no time can be extended in the order, which has already turned infructuous. Consequently, the present application for modification in the order cannot be accepted. Hence, it is hereby dismissed. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra...
Dev Narayan Pathak Vs. Indrajeet Shankar Dani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Con.C.No.328/13 25/02/13 Shri Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.As contempt application with regard to implementation of the order is already pending at the instance of the main petitioner in W.P.No.10000/10 namely Home Guard Sainik Evam Parivar Kalyan Sangh and others versus State of M.P.and another , I am not inclined to initiate action for contempt at the instance of the new employee. The contempt application shall be made applicable in the case of the present applicants also. With the aforesaid, finding no case made out for initiating action for contempt, this application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/- Con.C.No.368/13 27/02/13 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.As contempt application with regard to implementation of the order is already pending at the instance of the main petitioner in W.P.No.10000/10 namely Home Guard Sainik Evam Parivar Kalyan Sangh and others versus State of M.P.and another , I am not inclined to initiate action for c...
indrapal @ Rakesh Gujar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: Honble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, J.Criminal Appeal No.1859/1998 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Usman Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Shri Satish Kashyap, counsel for the respondent. JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 22nd day of August, 2012) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 17.4.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Damoh in ST. No.111 of 1993 whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of I.P.C and Section 25 of the Arms Act.2. The prosecution's case in short is that on 22.2.1992 at about 2.30 p.m the complainant Dwarka Prasad Patel (PW1) was taking the bus from the bus stand to the village Bila, District Damoh for Barat of his nephew Rambahadur. In the bus, driver, conductor and one Hetram (PW3) were present. Near Gadhi Mohalla the respondent snatched the licensed 12 bore gun from the hands of the complainant. The respondent...
Ram Prasad @ Ramu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
R.P.No.80/13 25/02/13 Shri Brijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents are heard on the question of review. It is stated by learned counsel that under the wrong assumption that proceedings were pending under the Land Acquisition Act, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to seek reference under Section 18 of the said act but the proceedings are pending under the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 and, therefore, the withdrawal on incorrect fact is a mistake committed which can be permitted to be corrected and, therefore, this application has been filed for review. Finding there to be an error apparent on the face of the record, this application is allowed Order dated 16/01/13 passed in W.P.No.21736/12 is recalled. The said writ petition be restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the appropriate Bench. With the aforesaid, ...
Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs. Chandra Kumar Chakrawarti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
R.P.No.135/13 25/02/13 Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 on advance notice. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant Shri Gupta, it is seen that while disposing of W.P.No.258/13 on 4/02/13 without notice to the present applicant, the petition was disposed of. It seems that certain error has been committed by this Court as effect of proceedings before the trial Court and certain injunction granted is not taken note of. This being the position, it is a fit case where the order passed in W.P.No.258/13 on 4/02/13 should be recalled. In view of the above, this application is allowed. The order dated 4/02/13 passed in W.P.No.258/13 is recalled. The said writ petition be restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the appropriate Bench. With the aforesaid, application stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Manish Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.765/2013 25/02/2013 Shri Deepak Tiwari, 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 2/12/12 in connection with Crime No.417/12 registered at P.S.Madan Mahal, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under section 34 (2) (ka) of the Excise Act. As per prosecution 61 liters of illicit liquor has been seized from the possession of this applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. 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 overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the gravity of offence, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release t...
Garha Gondwana Sanrakshan Sangh,jbp. Vs. the Collector, Jbp. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.1926.1997 25.2.2013 Shri Yogendra Patel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Dy. Advocate Gen. for respondents No.1, 3 and 7 to 11. Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri Bhatnagar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri Anuj Agarwal, Advocate for respondent no.5. Respondent no.6 is not served. Looking to the controveRs.involved in this case respondents no.1 to 4 are directed to file complete status report in respect of all water bodies of the township of Jabalpur within a period of two weeks from today. IA No.12907/2012 an application for amendment in the cause title of the petition impleading Madhya Pradesh Lake Preservation, Authority Paryawaran Parishar, E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal M.P. as respondent no.12:- It is submitted by respondents that the description of proposed respondent is not correct, the correct description would be M.P.Lake Conservator Authority, E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal M.P. In view of the aforesaid petitioner is permitted to implead ...
Upendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Manju Lohiya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Writ Petition No :14061. / 2012 Upendra Kumar versus Smt. Manju Lohiya and another 25.02.2013. Shri Ashish Pandey for the petitioner. Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the fiRs.appellate court, in the matter of rejection of the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. In the suit in question, application for temporary injunction having been rejected by the courts below, this writ petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the orders passed by the trial court and the fiRs.appellate court, it is seen that in its order passed both the courts have evaluated the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and finally the finding recorded concurrently is that on the date of filing of the su...
S.R. Thakre Vs. Shri Rajneesh Vais
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Con.C.No.199/11 25/02/13 Shri J.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view the order passed in the writ appeal on 2/01/13 setting aside the order passed in the writ petition i.e.W.P.No.18752/03 on 1/02/10 and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration to the Writ Court, no case is made out for proceeding further in the matter. As the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside by the Writ Court, this petition is rendered infructuous. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous in view of the order passed in the writ appeal. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »