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.
Afsar Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.598 of 1999 Afsar Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh .................................................................................................... Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Ajay Mishra counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 21st day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted vide judgment dated 5.10.1998 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Silwani, District Raisen in Criminal Case No.249/1993 for offences punishable under Section 25 and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced for one years rigorous imprisonment for each count with fine of Rs.200/-. It was also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. In Criminal Appeal No.107/1998 the learned Additional Ses...
Ramesh Prasad Sharma Vs. Hira Lal Trivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Ramesh Prasad Sharma versus Hira Lal Trivedi & Others Conc. No.327 21. 2.2013: Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Gulab K. Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Keeping in view the order passed by respondents as contained in Annexure R4-1 dated 25.2.2012, 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/-...
Manohar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1146/2012 Vinot Soni and another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Revision No.1933/2012 Manohar Soni and another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Shri Ashish Tiwari, counsel for the objector/complainant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 22nd day of February, 2013) These two revision applications are connected with the same case and same crime, therefore, decided by the present common order.2. The applicants have preferred the criminal revision No.1933/2012 against the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the learned 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.362/2012, whereby the charg...
M.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Vineet Kumar Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
W.A.No.936/2009 21.2.2013 Parties present. Heard on I A No.1793/2013 an application for early hearing of the appeal. Considering the controveRs.involved in the case, the prayer of urgent hearing is allowed. Be listed for hearing on 16th April 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...
Smt.Dhulari Bai and ors. Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Shrivastava and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
(1) First Appeal No.358/1995 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava First Appeal No.358 / 1995 Appellants :1. Smt. Dulari Bai (dead) 2. Rajesh S/o. Prem Narain Rabooda, 3. Sunil S/o. Prem Narain Rabooda, 4. Sanjay S/o. Prem Narain Rabooda, All residents of Kothi Bazar Hoshangabad Tehsil Hoshangabad, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) Vs. Respondents :1. Rameshwar Dayal Shrivastava, S/o. Shri Shambhu Dayal R/o. Kothi Bazar, Hoshangabad District Hoshangabad (M.P.) 2. Smt. Sangeeta W/o. Arjun Singh Verma, C/o. Shri Hazari Singh, R/o. Bhairogarh, Dewas, District Dewas (M.P.) _________________________________________________________ Shri Mrigendra Singh, Advocate and Shri Amit Khatri, Advocate for appellants. Shri Manikant Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1/plaintiff. Shri A.K. Choubey, Advocate for respondent no.2. _________________________________________________________ (2) First Appeal No.358/1995 Date of hearing :14. 02/2013 Date of J...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Murat Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Review Petition No.729/2010 21.2.2013 Shri Shailendra Samaiya, Advocate for the applicant. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3, though served. Shri Harmeet Ruprah, for respondent 5. This is an application for review of order dated 19.8.2010 passed in M.A.No.414/2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court in so far it directs the applicant Insurance Company to indemnify the amount of compensation within a stipulated period to non-applicants Nos.1 and 2. The facts giving rise to this application are these:- The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 29.11.2002 while allowing the motor accident claim case of non-applicants Nos.1 and 2 against non-applicant nos.3 and 4 and also the applicant Insurance Company held that the applicant will indemnify the amount of compensation awarded. Aggrieved, the applicant filed M.A.No.361/2003 against the non-applicants which was allowed vide order dated 15.7.2010 by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the extent that applicant will not be l...
Gulab Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
(1) Cr.A.No.231/2001 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Jain CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.231/2001 Gulab son of Vithoba, aged 40 years, by occupation Labourer, resident of village Bhatkherha, Tehsil Burhanpur, District East Nimar (Khandwa) M.P. ....Appellant -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh .Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the appellant: Shri S.K.Nema, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing:12. 02/2013 Date of Judgment:21. 02/2013 ********** JUDGMENT Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 29.01.2001 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Sessions Trial No.110/2000 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ...
Ram Phool Mewada Vs. Smt. Madhu Handa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Ram Phool Mewada versus Smt. Madhu Handa & Another Conc. No.124 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/-...
Udhav Shanker Maurya Vs. Shri Shashikant Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
Conc No ::1292. / 2012 Udhav Shankar Maurya versus Shri Shashikant Sharma and another 21.02.2013. Shri K.C.Ghildiyal for the applicant. Shri K.K.Singh for the non-applicants. Interalia contending that inspite of the directions issued by this Court on 18.8.2009, applicant was not permitted to join duties; he is not being taken back; and, not he has already attained the age of superannuation, this application is filed for initiating action for contempt. It is pointed out by Shri K.C.Ghildiyal that in pursuance to the impugned order passed by this Court on 18.8.2009, in W.P.No.2718/2008(S).certain communication was made to the applicant on 4.6.2010. However, the applicant did not receive this letter, but he received another communication dated 14.12.2010 from non-applicant No.3, wherein his request for extension of time was rejected after consultation with the Army Headquarters on the ground that inspite of option given to him on 4.6.2010, the applicant did not join within time. It is sta...
Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Antibiotic Workers Union
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Writ Appeal No. 984/2008) Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Antibiotic Workers Union and others PRESENT : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI S.A. BOBDE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for Appellant Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate Counsel for respondent No. 1 Shri P.C. Chandak, Advocate O R D E R (21/2/2013) PER S.A. BOBDE, C.J. Appellant, Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.1.2002, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant's wirt petition challenging the order of the Labour Court directing the appellants to reinstate the services of the workmen in question. The Labour Court had held that the reason of closure given by the appellant for terminating the services of the workmen was bad si...
- ‹ Prev
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- Next ›
- Last »