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.
Arvind Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
M.Cr.C.No.734/2013 19/02/2013 Shri Y.K.Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.K.Singh, GA for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 27/10/12 in connection with Crime No.604/12 registered at P.S.Khurai, District Sagar for the offence punishable under sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State submits that 56 cases of similar offence are pending against this applicant therefore, he prays for dismissal of the application. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the gravity of offence, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release this applicant on bail....
Jagdish Prasad Badgaiyan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
W.P.No.2269/2013 19.2.2013 Shri R.P.Kanojia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. We are not inclined to entertain this PIL at the behest of the petitioner as the petitioner has no locus standi to question the lease granted to respondent no.4 in the land under dispute as the petitioner is neither lessee not sub lessee not has any interest in the land. However, in the interest of justice, if the petitioner makes a representation to the respondents within two weeks' the respondents shall consider and decide the same within a period of four weeks. It is made clear that the respondents shall hear all the affected parties before passing any adveRs.order. C.C.as per rules. (S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice JUDGE P/...
Mathura Prasad Vs. R.S.Julania
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Con.C.No.358/12 19/02/13 Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that the order in question in W.P.No.18290/10 (s) was passed on 16/11/11, more than a year has passed and even notices have not been issued, for the present, without issuing any notice to the respondents, it is directed that in case, the directions issued for deciding the claim of the petitioner as ordered on 16/11/11 in W.P.No.18290/10 (s) has not been complied with, the same be not complied with by the responsible officer arrayed as respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, this application stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Murlidhar Vs. Pavan Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Second Appeal No.1398 / 2012 (Murlidhar versus Pawan Kumar Jain) 19-02-2013 Heard Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8-11-2012 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Satna, in C.A.No.37A/2011, confirming and affirming the judgment and decree dated 28-2-2011 passed by the 5th Civil Judge Class-II, Satna, in C.S.No.112A/2010 by which the suit for eviction filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant has been decreed under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that initially the suit for eviction had been filed by the respondent against the appellant on the grounds mentioned under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act for arrears of rent and 12(1)(f) of the Act for bona fide requirement of the accommodation for business purpose...
Ramashankar Pandey Vs. Shri Manoj Jhalani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Con.C.No.1886/11 19/02/13 Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioners.W.P. No.9205/10 (s) was disposed of by this Court on 19/07/10 without notice to the respondents and without hearing them with a direction to confer the benefit to the petitioners in view of the law laid down in the case of Madhukant Yadu versus State of M.P.Inter alia contending that this order has not been complied with, respondents have pointed out that the orders have been passed on 21/06/12 granting benefit of pay fixation to the petitioners with effect from the initial date of appointment. Now, petitioners refuse the date of appointment and submits that the dates have been wrongly mentioned. Petitioners were initially appointed on different dates and not on the date as indicated in Annexure R-1. If that be so, petitioners are granted liberty to represent to the respondents and on the same being done, respondents shall consider and decide the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law within...
Mohan Lal Jaiswal Vs. Mr. Diwakar Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Mohan Lal Jaiswal versus Mr.Diwakar Mishra Conc. No.1706 19. 2.2013: Shri Subhash Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Complaining non-compliance with the order passed on 29.11.2010 in W.P.No.16970/2010 this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. The order was passed on 29.11.2010 and even though this contempt application is filed on 4.10.2012 till date notices have not been issued. More than 3 years have passed and officers who were responsible for non-compliance with the order would no more be available. In the said circumstances, for the present, I see no reason to initiate action for contempt. Instead it is directed that in case order passed has not been complied with respondents are directed to ensure that order is given effect to and benefits conferred on the petitioner or decision taken on the representation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. (...
Kamal Singh Vs. Dwarika Prasad Rajput
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
1 C.R.No.445/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Civil Revision No.445/2010 APPLICANT: Kamal Singh age Major, S/o Shri Puran Singh, R/o village Karariya, Tahsil Huzoor, District Bhopal (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT:1. Dwarka Prasad Rajput, age Major, S/o Bhagwan Singh, 2. Tulsiram Rajput, Age Major, S/o Jagannath Singh Rajput Both R/o Village Karariya, Tahsil Huzoor, District Bhopal 3. State of M.P. Through Collector, Bhopal (M.P.) Shri K.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Anand Nema, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ORDER (19.02.2013) 1. This revision application under Section 115 C.P.C. has 2 C.R.No.445/2010 been filed at the instance of the defendant No.1 against the impugned order dated 14.10.2010, passed by learned Third Additional Judge to the court of Xth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in C.S. No.118-A/2009, whereby an application u...
Khushram Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.973/1998 Khushram @ Khattan VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 19th day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 377 of IPC vide judgment dated 30.6.1998 passed by the JMFC, Banda, District Sagar in criminal case No.509/1991 and sentenced for 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In criminal appeal No.130/1998 vide judgment dated 10.8.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has prefer...
Parasram Phatey Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Writ Petition No :5003. / 2008 Parasram Phatey versus Union Bank of India and others 19.02.2013. None appears for the petitioner. Shri Abhijit Thakur, counsel for the respondent/Bank. Shri A.S.Raizada for respondent No.2. This petition is listed for final hearing. It is being rolled over for the last two weeks and none is appearing for the petitioner. Shri Abhijit Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, points out that the petitioner has failed to comply with the interim directions given by this Court and the amount as directed by this Court has not been deposited. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is unnecessarily delaying the matter and as he has not complied with the order, the petition should be dismissed. That apart, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the order impugned is an order passed under section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financi...
Pappu @ Suresh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cri. Appeal No.1479/2009 Pappu @ Suresh, aged about 28 years, son of Parshottamlal Sahu, Resident of Katra, Sihora, Distt. Jabalpur Appellants vs. State of M.P., through SHO, P.S. Sihora, Distt. Jabalpur Respondent .. Ms. Asgari Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, P.L. for respondent-State. Date of Hearing :08. 1.2013 Date of Judgment :19. 2.2013 JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred against the judgment- dated 28.5.2005 passed by Special Judge [under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred as the Act) Jabalpur, in Special Case No.45/04, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 8 read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default, to suffer R.I. for 2 years.2. For the reasons recorded in the judgment only, each one of co-accused Sunita and Shahnaj was convicted under Section 8 read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- Next ›
- Last »