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.
Gopal Prasad Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
W.P.No.3953/2012 21.02.2013 Shri Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit K. Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 and 3. Ms.Vandana Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 4. Let an affidavit be filed by 27th of February, 2013 indicating that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat on 05.08.2011 has been executed in full and the payment of surrender leave encashment is made to the petitioner. A copy of the order be made available to learned counsel appearing for the respondents to communicate the same to the authorities for compliance. List the petition on 28th February, 2013. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. b...
Abhilash Verma Vs. Smt. Madhu Handa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Abhilash Verma versus Smt. Madhu Handa & Another Conc. No.126 21. 2.2013: Shri P.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for non-applicants. Keeping in view the order passed by non-applicants as contained in Annexure R-1 dated 23.9.2011, rejecting claim of applicant, I see no reason to initiate action for contempt. In case applicant has any grievance still subsisting with regard to manner in which his claim has been considered and rejected, he may challenge the same afresh in accordance to law. Accordingly, finding no case made out for initiating action for contempt, non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. With the aforesaid the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Dhananjay Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.236/2013 21/02/2013 Shri Y.P.Sharma, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicants have been arrested on 26/12/12 in connection with Crime No.777/12 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Sidhi for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence against these applicants. The sole case rests on the circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstantial evidence is already broken. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicants. Learned counsel for the State submits that there was a previous enmity between accused Dhananjay Singh, Gulab Kori and deceased Shyamlal as...
Mohan Singh Vishwakarma Vs. Smt. Madhu Handa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Mohan Singh Vishwakarma versus Smt. Madhu Handa & Another Conc. No.122 21. 2.2013: Shri P.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for non-applicants. Keeping in view the order passed by non-applicants as contained in Annexure R-1 dated 23.9.2011, rejecting claim of applicant, I see no reason to initiate action for contempt. In case applicant has any grievance still subsisting with regard to manner in which his claim has been considered and rejected, he may challenge the same afresh in accordance to law. Accordingly, finding no case made out for initiating action for contempt, non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. With the aforesaid the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Bhajan and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Criminal Revision No.565/1999 21.02.2013 Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicants have challenged the order dated 6.3.1999 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in criminal appeal no.4/94, whereby the applicants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:- Description Conviction Sentence Fine amount Default of the U/s Sentence accused All the 148 of IPC `300/- applicants Applicant 326 Imprisonment `5,000/- S.I.for three No.1 till rising of the months Court 324 of IPC `1,000/- S.I.for one month Applicants 326/149 of Imprisonment `2,000/- S.I.for three No.2 to 7 IPC till rising of the months Court 324/149 of `1,000/- S.I.for two IPC months Applicants 324/149 of `1,000/- S.I.for two No.2, 3 & 4 IPC months After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no basis ...
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. V.S. Trivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
W.A.No.775/2010 21.2.2013 Parties present. Be listed for hearing on 19th March 2013 . (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE JUDGE Ag Cont.Petition No.1462/2011 11.2.2013 Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, prays two weeks' time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE JUDGE Ag Conc. No.1903/2012 11.2.2013 Parties present. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General submits that he has received instructions on 18.1.2013 that the consequential action in compliance of the order dated 2.7.2012 has been initiated. However, it will take further two weeks' time to comply the same. In view of the aforesaid prayer, hearing of this petition is adjourned to 11th March 2013. On the next date of hearing, the respondent shall file compliance report. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE JUDGE Ag Cont.Cr. No.8/2012 11.2.2013 Petitioner present in person. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents No.1 and 3...
Omkar Varade Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
W.P.No.8737/2012 21.02.2013 Shri P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondents. By filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that the measurement book sought to be placed on record as Annx.R/2 by the respondents is a manipulated document, inasmuch as, the Sub Engineer who has prepared the measurement book Annx.R/2 was not posted at the relevant time on such a place where the construction work was being done. According to the petitioner, the measurement book placed on record as Annx.P/9 was the original one, but some part of the same has been removed by the Sub Engineer, who was Incharge of the construction and who was sought to be transferred from the said place. According to him only on the basis of manipulated document, the respondents have alleged that the recovery has rightly been ordered against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents prayed for and is granted two weeks' time to seek instructi...
Sukratlal Choudhari Vs. Shri V.V.Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Sukratlal Choudhari versus Shri V.V.Mishra & Others Conc. No.684 21. 2.2013: Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Naveen Dubey, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. From the petitioner's own showing and on perusal of the documents Annexure AC-3 dated 15.3.2011 it is clear that claim of petitioner for regularization has been considered, but due to want of vacancy he is not regularized. If that be so, it is not a fit case where action for contempt can be initiated. In case petitioner has any grievance still subsisting with regard to the manner in which consideration is made or vacancy is available, he may challenge the same afresh in accordance to law, but . Accordingly, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. With the aforesaid the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Tej Pratap Singh Vs. H.K. Marushah
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Tej Pratap Singh versus H.K.Marushah & Another Conc. No.1829 21. 2.2013: Shri Vinot Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned counsel for respondents. Keeping in view the order passed by respondents as contained in Annexure R-1 dated 29.9.2012, rejecting the representation of petitioner, no further action is required to be taken in the matter. In case petitioner has any grievance still subsisting with regard to manner in which his representation has been considered and rejected, he may challenge the same afresh in accordance to law. Accordingly, finding no case made out for initiating action for contempt, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application is disposed of. With the aforesaid the application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Sumant Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.79/2013 21.2.2013 Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Manot Soni, Special Public Prosecutor Narcotics for Union of India. This is the 7th bail application of the applicant who has been arrested in Crime No.1/2008 for offences under Section 9A/25A read with 22A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Applicant has been in custody since 16.11.2008 and till date about 5 years of custody has been undergone by the applicant. The total sentence which can be imposed upon him is not more than 10 yeaRs.That being so, he has been already undergone half of the sentence. Inspite of repeated orders passed by this Court in the previous bail applications, trial has not been concluded. That apart, 12 witnesses have been examined, three witnesses have been turned hostile and from the statement of other witnesses there is nothing to implicate the applicant. Taking note of the totality of circumstances, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case where not bail can be granted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »