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.
Bk.Pandey and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
CRR No.791/1999 Criminal Revision No.791/1999 25.2.2013 Shri P.N.Dubey, counsel for the applicants. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 8.4.1999 passed by the learned JMFC, Budhar (Shri N.P.Singh) in a criminal case No.1033/1998, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 379 of IPC were framed. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, a report was lodged against Raju Verma and Santosh Verma that they had stolen some property from the mines including explosives and other things and they left their bicycles at the spot. The Deputy Area Manger of South Eastern Coal Fields LTD.wrote a letter to SHO, Police Station Budhar to obtain those bicycles and to proceed with them, according to the law. In the meantime, Santosh Verma and Raju Verma had moved a criminal complaint against the applicants that they had stolen their bicycles. The complaint was directed un...
Smt. Sunita Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Smt. Sunita Singh versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.2764 25. 2.2013: Shri A.Mukkopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Seeking Police Protection from forcible dispossession of petitioner from the residential house and action to be taken against respondent No.5 by the police authorities, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner claims to be a widowed lady and it is her case that she is in possession of a residential house situated at Mauja Richchai, Patwari Halka No.16, Tehsil Panagar, District Jabalpur area measuring 900 sq.ft. in which a house has been constructed. It is stated that the petitioner is residing in house since 2005. Certain documents showing existence of petitioner, as she has obtained LPG gas connection, telephone connection, electricity connection in the said premises are filed as Annexure P-1. It is also stated in para 5.4 of the writ petition that the property as narrated in the wri...
Mehmood Ali Baig Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
CRR No.2182/2012 Criminal Revision No.2182/2012 25.2.2013 Shri S.D.Khan, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. Heard on admission. The applicants have challenged the order dated 14.8.2012 passed by the learned JMFC (Smt.Shashi Singh) in criminal case No.5518/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC were framed against the applicants. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the complainant was the wife of the applicant No.1 Mehmood Ali, whereas the applicant No.2 is father of the applicant No.1. The FIR was lodged by the complainant that she was being harassed for demand of dowry by the applicants. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the complainant had lodged an FIR against both the applicants by specific alle...
Commissioner of Income Tax and ors Vs. Ashok Goyal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
M.C.C.Petition No :1432. / 2006 Commissioner of Income Tax and others versus Ashok Goyal 25.02.2013. Shri Sanjay Lal with Shri Rajesh Pandey for the applicant. This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, and the prayer made in the application is that the time limit fixed on 13.3.2006, in Writ Petition No.2814/1994, be extended by a further period of three months. While disposing of Writ Petition No.2814/1994, on 13.3.2006, a Bench of this Court granted the applicant three months time to take action. The application was filed on 27.7.2006 and is listed today after a period of more than seven yeaRs.The only prayer made in the application is that the time limit fixed on 13.3.2006, in Writ Petition No.2814/1994, be extended by a further period of three months. A period of more than seven years have passed and, therefore, with the passage of time, this application which seeks for extension of time by three months, has already expired. Accordingly, finding th...
Smt. Janki Namdeo Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Writ Petition No.2694/2013 25.02.2013 Mr.Yash Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 9.12.2012, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that a criminal case under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the petitioner had challenged the initiation of criminal proceeding before this Court in a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The aforesaid petition has been entertained by a Bench of this Court and the proceedings instituted have been stayed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has preferred an application for revocation of suspension, which is pending before the Comp...
Ku. Sarita Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Borad of Secondary E ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
W.P.No.13397/12 25/02/13 Shri R.P.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Petitioner was a student who had appeared in the Class-XII examination conducted by the respondent/Board in March-April, 2012. In the subject of chemistry, petitioner received 54 out of 75 marks. It was her grievance that her answer sheets have not been evaluated properly. She was expecting more than 65 marks and as she has received less than the expected marks, a writ petition was filed making the assertion that her answer-sheets have not been reevaluated properly. Taking note of the grievance of the petitioner, an interim order was passed by this Court on 19/11/12 and, thereafter, on 13/02/13 asking the learned counsel for the State to appoint two valuers in the subject in question for valuation of the answer- sheets. Accordingly, in pursuance to the order passed, Smt. Sarita Shukla, Lectu...
Radhelal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Radhelal Ahirwar versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.2709 25. 2.2013: Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I Niwadi, District Tikamgarh, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for spot inspection and submission of report under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. In the said suit an application filed by the petitioner for appointment of commission to conduct inspection and submit report is rejected merely on the ground that the dispute in question can be considered by recording of evidence and for the purpose of collecting evidence, at this stage, appointment of commission is not necessary. Rejection of application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC on the grounds and reasons as indicated hereinabove cannot be ter...
Raju Rajaipure Vs. the Sugarcane Commissioner
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
Writ Petition No.2630/2013 25.02.2013 Mr.Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Heard. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks regularization in the light of Circulars issued by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition be disposed of and the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall dealt with in accordance with law. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation within a period of three weeks, the same shall be decided by the Competent Authority in the light of Circulars issued by the State Go...
Prayag and ors. Vs. Maniraj Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
CRR No.1198/1997 Criminal Revision No.1198/1997 25.2.2013 None for the applicants. Shri L.D.S.Baghel, counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicants is not appearing since long, therefore, the matter is considered finally in his absence. The applicants have challenged the order dated 4.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in criminal revision No.165/1994, whereby the order dated 31.10.1994 passed by the SDM, Mauganj in criminal case no.85/1989 was set aside and it was directed that the impugned property could not left free. It was directed that possession of that land be given to the respondent No.1. At present, 15 years are passed, after passing of the impugned order and therefore, it is obvious that ownership of the property must have been settled by various civil Courts. Under such circumstances, not it is not possible to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa. If the applicants have ...
Lalit Loshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2013
CRR No.2262/2012 Criminal Revision No.2262/2012 25.2.2013 Shri Umesh Trivedi, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandla in special case No.3/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act along with charge of offence punishable under section 379 read with section 34 of IPC were framed against the applicant. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, some poles were affixed in Khumbh area at Mandla by Electricity Board. On 28.11.2011, at about 3.45 p.m., the applicant was found loading those poles in a truck and therefore, he has committed a crime of theft. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was given a contract to affix such poles in the entire Mandla district and therefore, those poles were of the applicant himself. It is submitted that som...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »