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.
Chait Ram Yadav Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 Cr.A. No.2027/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR BEFORE : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J.CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2027 OF 199.APPELLANT: Chait Ram Yadav, S/o Chhiddilal Yadav, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Dorli Chhatarpur, District-Seoni (M.P) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh Through P .S. Seoni District- Seoni (M.P) ****************************************************************** For Appellant : Shri S.D. Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer ****************************************************************** JUDGMENT 28/02/2013 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15/09/1997 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T. No.37/1994 convicting the appellant under section 307 IPC for attempting on life of Shaheed Khan (PW-2) and sentenced to 4 years R.I and fine of Rs.1000/- and further convicted under section 324 IPC for causing injury to Sheikh @ Mustaffa (PW-1) and sentenced to 6 months R.I.2. Facts of the case...
Jaishanker Prasad Tripathi Vs. R.K.Sawai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 Conc. No.496/2010 28/2/2013 Shri Ravendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents. Considering the fact that the claim of the petitioner has been considered in accordance to the policies and circulars of the State Government and after taking note of law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others 2006(4) SCC 1.not vide Annexure R/1 dated 24.2.2013 petitioner's claim has been rejected mainly on the ground that senior to him 21 daily wages employees working in the Work Charged establishment are yet to be regularized and therefore, for the present, his claim cannot be considered. I see no reason to interfere into the matter when the writ petition was disposed of only with a direction to the employer to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization within three months in accordance to the principles laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and the Circulars issued by ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
MCC No.179/13 28.02.13. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Mukesh Agarwal, learned counsel present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent. Considering the controveRs.involved in this case, with the consent of parties the matter is heard. IA No.2415/13 for condonation of delay in filing this restoration application. For the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit of Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate, we find it appropriate to condone the delay in filing of this restoration application. Accordingly, IA No.2415/13 is allowed. Delay in filing this restoration application is condoned. MCC No.179/13 for restoration of ITA No.153/11. The prayer made in the application is not opposed by the respondent. Considering the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit of Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate, we find it appropriate to allow this application and accordingly prayer made in the application is allowed. Office is directed to restore ITA No.153/1...
Phoolchandra Yadav Vs. Sunderlal Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Writ Petition No :11499. / 2010 Phoolchandra Yadav versus Sunderlal Yadav and others 28.02.2013. Shri O.P.Mishra for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Pandey for the respondents. Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the learned trial court in a proceeding held under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is plaintiff and his application for demarcation has been rejected. Learned Court has found that for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute, appointment of a Commission for demarcation is not necessary and for the purpose of collecting evidence no Commission can be appointed. Discretion exercised by the Court and the reasons given for rejection of the application cannot be termed as perveRs.or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. Accordingly, finding no ground for interference, the petition is dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE...
Nipun Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 W.P.No.2437/2013 Nipun Kumar Pandey State of M.P.& others 28.2.2013 Shri J.N.Tripathi, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.AG for respondents. In this petition, order of the Collector, Satna dated 22.12.2012 under Section 323(1) of the M.P.Municipalities Act, 1961 is under challenge. During couRs.of hearing today, it revealed that the matter is in active consideration by the State Government as is required under sub-section (2) of Section 323 of the said Act, but no final steps have been taken by the State Government. From the perusal of the record, we find that the order has been passed nearly two months back. The State Government ought to have taken steps forthwith in the matter, so that an appropriate decision may be taken by the State Government and none of the effected parties is affected adversely. Apart from this, financial interest of the petitioner is also involved in the matter. In aforesaid circumstances, we direct the respondent No.1 to take a final decision in ...
Mangal Singh and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
CRR No.1824/1999 Criminal Revision No.1824/1999 28 .2.2013 Shri Imtiaz Husain, counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 2.12.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in S.T.No.62/1999, whereby the opportunity of defence was closed. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that a dying declaration which was recorded by the then Tahsildar Rajendra Rai appears to be a prosecution document, which is not required to be proved separately and therefore, consent of the prosecution be taken as to whether the Public Prosecutor accepts it as a prosecution document or not. If he does not agree then, on submission of PF, diet money and transportation charges of the concerned witness alongwith actual present address, a humdust notice be...
indrajeet Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12737/2011 M.Cr.C.No.12737/2011 28.2.2013 Shri S.Pandey, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Prakash Upadhyay, counsel for the respondents No.4 to 10. Heard on admission. The applicants have moved an application to get the supplementary investigation by the police on the basis of the FIR and to make the respondents No.4 to 10 as party in the case, whereas trial is going on against two accused persons. The facts of the case, in short, are that, it is alleged against two accused persons that they fired from the gun and killed one Raghvendra Singh and 42 other persons were also injured. During the pendency of the trial, one injured has moved an application under section 319 of the Cr.P.C.to implicate the respondents No.4 to 10 has party in the case and that application was partly allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the respondent No.4 was made as an accused. After considering the submissions made by learned c...
Ku.Durdana Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.14311/2012 28.2.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Nishant Datt for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.438/2012 registered at P.S.Obedullaganj, District Raisen for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B/34 of the IPC. As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicant that she sold the disputed land by committing fraud. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a lady, she has been falsely implicated in the case. The disputed land was purchased by father of the applicant Shukraulla Khan and Anwar Khan and Asrar Khan executed a power of attorney in her name. In the meanwhile, her father died, then her brother and mother filed a civil suit against Anwar Khan and Asrar Khan. In the meanwhile, the transaction was mad...
Suneeta Rajak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.14022/2012 28.2.2013 Shri Arubendra Singh, 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 27.5.2012 in connection with Crime No.435/2012 registered at P.S.Kolgawan, District Satna for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 120-B of the IPC. It is alleged against the applicant that she was involved in the conspiracy of committing murder of her husband. She managed for the murder of her husband with the help of Co.accused Rambaksh Kewat and co-accused Rambaksh arranged a meeting of applicant with another co-accused Rajjan Kushwaha and ultimately, Rajjan Kushwaha killed Rajesh. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady, she has been falsely implicated in the case. She is wife of deceased Rajesh. As per prosecution itself, there is no direct allegation against the applicant in regard ...
Gulab Ram Pathak Vs. Shri B.K. Padwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Gulab Ram Pathak versus Shri B.K.Padwar & Another Conc. No.1510 28. 2.2013: Shri Arbind Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Gulab K. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the order passed by respondents as contained in Annexure R-1 and issuing a revised pension payment order, for the present, no further action is required to be taken for initiating action for contempt. However, actual monetary benefit accruing to petitioner by virtue of revised pension payment order, if any, be also paid within a period of two months. With the aforesaid the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »