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.
Kanti Prasad Shah Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
---1--- W.A.No.114/2013 20.2.2013 Shri Arvind Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri V. Bhide, learned counsel for the respondents. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 21.10.2013 passed in W.P.No.11093/2009 by learned Single Judge of this Court. Learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that it was filed 19 years after publication of select list on 4.9.1990. Learned Single Judge has also rejected the justification of delay offered by the petitioner that the petitioner was submitting representation from time to time to the respondents. We are in agreement with the view of learned Single Judge. In view of the aforesaid we see no reason to interfere in the order passed by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal has no force and the same stands dismissed. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge AK...
Santosh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.1369/2013 20.2.2013 Shri Siddhart Datt, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Applicant has been granted bail on medical grounds for more than one year. Initially bail was granted to the petitioner considering the fact that he is to undergo certain neurological operation. He has undergone operation. Extension was granted to him on more than two occasions. not from the medical documents, it is seen that applicant is only given routine treatment and taking note of the totality of circumstances and the fact that applicant is facing trial for an offence under Section 302 of IPC, I see no reason for granting any extension of bail granted to the applicant. Medical documents produced does not indicate that applicant is suffering from any ailment serious in nature. Applicant is on bail for more than a year. not he has already undergone treatment and there is nothing to show that further bail on medical ground is ...
Dinesh Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Cr.R.No.933/2012 20.2.2013 Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA. No.3728/2013, an application for taking additional documents on record. Application is allowed. Documents are taken on record. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwada, District Chhindwara in ST No.62/2012 whereby the charges of offences punishable under Sections 307 read with section 34 of I.P.C were appended against the applicants along with the other charges. The prosecution's case in short is that on 19.1.2012 the applicants assaulted the victims Golu @ Vidyabhushan Tiwari and Tinku @ Chandrabhushan Tiwari with deadly weapons like rod, heavy log and sword. The victims were taken to the hospital and thereafter, they were referred to the District Hospital, Chhindwara. They were also referred to some...
Meera Dhamle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Appeal No.146/2013 (Meera Dhamle versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 20.02.2013 Shri S.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. Heard on the question of admission. On consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition N0.22050/2012, dated 24-12-2012. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, except to the extent that the time granted by the learned Single Judge for vacating the bungalow is hereby extended by a period of six months from the date of its expiry. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge ac....
Ajab Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.16/1999 Ajab Singh and another VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.D.Mishra, counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 20th day of February, 2013) The applicants were convicted vide judgment dated 8.8.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara in criminal case No.4049/1988 for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and sentenced for 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- upon each of the applicants. In criminal appeal No.124/1997 vide judgment dated 23.12.1998 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, the appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed in toto. Being aggrieved with the judg...
Smt. Beena Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No :2199. / 2013 Smt. Beena Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 20.02.2013. Shri S.R.Singh for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Dispute in question pertains to purchase of a house situated in Naya Sheetla Mai Ward, Mohalla Bai Ka Bagicha, constructed on KhaSr.No.423, Nazul Sheet No.124, Plot No.99/5, Area 1035 square feet. It is stated that the double storied building was purchased by the petitioner alongwith her father from respondent No.3, by registered sale-deed dated 29.4.2005, on payment of a consideration of `3,50,000/-. However, not it is stated that action is being taken by the Additional Collector, Jabalpur and Cent Bank Home Finance Limited respondent No.2, for taking over possession of the house and contending that in a fraudulent manner the property has been sold to the petitioner by respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 has committed a criminal offence, this writ petition is filed. Having heard learned counsel ...
T.S. Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Writ Petition No.19705/2012 20.02.2013 Mr.Shakti Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr.M.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4. Heard. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 9.11.2012 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Pawai, district Panna to district Tikamgarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, in the absence of an interim order, the petitioner was compelled to join at the transferred place of posting. It is further submitted that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file a fresh representation to the respondent No.3- Chief Engineer and the Chief Engineer be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 fairly submitted that if the petitioner files a fresh representation to the Chief Engineer, the same shal...
Shailendra @ Golu Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
Criminal Revision No.243/2013 20.02.2013 Shri R.S.Patel, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 28.1.2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in S.T.No.138/12, whereby the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.was dismissed. The facts relating to the present revision, in short are that, an FIR was lodged against the applicant and police had done a merg enquiry for a longer period and thereafter, a case was registered. After filing of the charge sheet, the police did not annexe the merg enquiry statements of various witnesses alongwith the charge sheet therefore, the applicant prays for copy of the statements of various witnesses, which were recorded during the merg enquiry and therefore, the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.was moved. After considering the submissions made by the learned cou...
Gulab Singh Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.2056/2012 M.Cr.C.No.2056/2012 20.02.2013 Petitioner by Shri Ajeet Singh, Advocate. Respondent by Shri Sajidulla Khan, Advocate. Present petition has been preferred under section 407 Cr.P.C seeking relief of transfer of R.T No.933/2007 pending under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act before JMFC, Bhopal to Satna. According to petitioner, the respondent financed a vehicle to him at Satna. Aforesaid vehicle met with an accident in territorial jurisdiction of Satna. During re- payment of installments, a cheque issued from Satna by the petitioner is said to have been bounced at Bhopal, hence a case under section 138, NI Act has been instituted by respondent in Bhopal. In view of the fact that though cheque was issued in favour of the respondent who had its branch office at Satna also, but cheque was bounced in Bhopal jurisdiction, case will be triable in both the courts, i.e Satna Court as well as Bhopal Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized on the fact that ...
Surendra Kumar Tiwari Th:legal Heairs Vinod Kumar Tiwari Vs. Chintaman ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2013
1 W.P.No.20390/2012 20.2.2013 Shri Amit Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an order passed by the learned Executing Court rejecting an objection filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, this writ petition has been filed. A decree has been passed for eviction of the petitioner. The Decree has attained finality and during the execution proceeding petitioner claim that in the house in question petitioner has spent a sum of Rs.2 Lacs which should be refunded to him. The learned Court below found that it does not form part of the decree and on the ground that amount cannot be refunded in execution proceedings, the application is rejected. While rejecting the application it is held that decree was passed in the year 2007 and the application is passed only to stall the execution proceedings. Keeping in view the reasons given by the Court below and justification given for rejection of the application, I see no reason to interfere into the matter in this writ petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- Next ›
- Last »