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.
Kashi Bai Vs. Shri Arun Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 Conc. No.1545/2012 28/2/2013 Shri Ashok Pali, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Umesh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. Contending that certain directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.15505/2011 on 10.2.2012 has not been complied with, this writ petition has been filed. From the return filed by the respondents, it is seen that after taking note of the grievance of the petitioners orders have been passed as contained in Annexure R/2 and R/4 with regard to allotment of pattas and lands to the petitioner. As far as petitioner No.5 Udal Singh is concerned, Patta has been granted to him and with regard to the other petitioners it is stated that even though orders have been passed but in W.P.No.1499/2001 as order of status quo has been passed by this Court, no action can be taken and it is stated that after the said writ petition W.P.No.1499/2001 is decided, claim of the remaining petitioners shall also be considered and decision taken. Considering the aforesaid, for th...
Ashish Chauhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.569/2013 28.2.2013 Shri S.S.Chauhan, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 21.8.2012 in connection with Crime No.200/2011 registered at Police Station Habibganj District Bhopal for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 365, 302/34, 506, 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that co-accused Shanky @ Prashant, Lalu @ Satyendra and Pampam @ Sandeep have already been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal by Annexure -A/2. Similarly place co-accused Ganesh Sonwane has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.1.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.14306/2012. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the Stat...
Sanman Singh Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 Criminal Revision No.1066/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1066/1999 Sanman Singh VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A. Usmani, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. ORDER (Passed on the 28th day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the P.F. Act.) vide judgment dated 12.4.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen in Criminal Case No.649/89 and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In Criminal Appeal No.46/1999 the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen vide judgment dated 7.7.1999 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with aforesaid 2 Criminal Revision No.1066/1999 judgments passe...
Laxaminarayan Vs. Shri K.K. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Laxminarayan versus Shri K.K.Singh & Others Conc. No.1223 28. 2.2013: Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. On 16.12.2011, W.P.No.21169/2011 was disposed of by this Court without notice to the respondents and without hearing them and the only direction issued was that claim of petitioner for regularization be considered in accordance to the circular Annexure P-1 that was filed in the original writ petition and decision taken. Respondents have filed the return and it is brought to the notice of this Court in the return that no such rule as claimed by the petitioner and filed as Annexure P-1 in the writ petition is available, no such provision has been incorporated by the department and on examination as it was found that no such statutory rule is available. However, by filing rejoinder petitioner has brought on record orders passed on 29.6.1998 and 5.12.2001 Annexure C-4 and C-5 and contend that on the basis of...
Kamlesh Mahobiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2018/2013 28.2.2013 Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the applicants. Shri G.S.Thakur, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under section 438 of Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.26/2013 registered at P.S.Lanji, District Balaghat for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 342, 384/34, 506-II of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Except the offence under Section 384 of the IPC, remaining offences are bailable and triable by the Magistrate. There was a business rivalry between the complainant and applicants. The allegation of extortion of Rs.6000/- has been made against applicants, thereafter, complainant himself made a report to Superintendent of Police that he has already received Rs.6000/- from the applicants, thus its a business transaction between the parties. The applicants are ready to ...
Bhaiyalal Vs. Shri K.K. Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Bhaiyalal versus Shri K.K.Singh & Others Conc. No.1222 28. 2.2013: Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. On 27.2.2012, W.P.No.3034/2012(s) was disposed of by this Court without notice to the respondents and without hearing them and the only direction issued was that claim of petitioner for regularization be considered in accordance to the circular that was filed in the original writ petition and decision taken. Respondents have filed the return and it is brought to the notice of this Court in the return that no such rule as claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition is available, no such provision has been incorporated by the department and on examination as it was found that no such statutory rule is available. However, by filing rejoinder petitioner has brought on record orders passed on 29.6.1998 and 5.12.2001 Annexure C-4 and C-5 and contend that on the basis of M.P.Gangman Service Rule, 1996 already 2...
S.L.Seth Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.2608/2009 S.L. Seth & others Vs. Union of India & others. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J._______________________________________________________________ Shri Brian D'Silva, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 & 5. Shri S.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. ORDER (28.02. 2013) The petitioners herein are said to be the persons, who have obtained the lease on transfer from the original lessee and are aggrieved by the action of the respondents, rejecting their application for grant of building permission. During the pendency of the writ petition certain members of the family have died and substitution of legal representatives has been ordered.2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of present writ petition are that the land measuring 2.60 acres known as Bungalow No.5 situated at Theat...
M/S Ujjwal Feeds Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
1 W.P.No.10589/2005 M/s Ujjwal Feeds State of M.P.& others 28.2.2013 Shri D.K.Dixit, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, GA for respondents. This petition is directed against an order dated 3.6.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur in Case No.319/R/2004/State. Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset submits that after passing of the order, the State Government itself has decided to exempt Maize from payment of tax and there are certain decisions in favour of the petitioner. So petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to seek review of the order Annexure P/9 dated 3.6.2005 before the respondent No.2 who may be directed to decide the matter in accordance with law taking cognizance of the notifications of the State Government and other orders in favour of the petitioner. Shri Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty as prayed. In view of afore...
Rambabu Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1272/2013 27.2.2013 Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 13.11.2012 in connection with Crime No.288/2012 registered at P.S.Chhapara, District Seoni for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecutrix is more than 17 years of age. She had gone with the applicant on her own accord. They travelled various places like Nagpur, Ganjbasauda, Seoni etc.thereafter, after returning back to her parental house, the prosecutrix has lodged the false and concocted report against the applicant. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due con...
Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
1 M.Cr.C No.1569/2011 M.Cr.C.No.1569/2011 27.02.2013 Shri Vishal Dhagat, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent/State by Smt. Vandana Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. In view of the fact that learned Panel Lawyer is unable to substantiate as to on the basis of what document petitioner has been implicated in the charge sheet, it is directed that the Excise Inspector, who prepared Panchnama and official who signed the charge sheet, should file a response in this matter under their own signature explaining as to why Pankaj Jaiswal (petititioner) is made accused in this matter. A copy of this order be made available to learned Panel Lawyer for making effective communication with them. List this case in the week commencing 1st April, 2013 for consideration on stay application. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge tarun...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »