Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Govind Raj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Mining Development Departm ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
W.P.No.21126/12 (s) 1/03/13 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner wants indulgence of this Court on the ground that the Collector concerned is not granting the mining lease to the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari points out that the mining lease to the petitioner is not being granted as the environmental clearance is not granted. Granting of environmental clearance and clearance from the forest department is a mandatory requirement as held by the Supreme Court in various cases. Once, the Collector has called for clearance from the environmental authorities, this Court in ignoring the same cannot issue any mandamus for granting mining lease to the petitioner. As and when the petitioner obtain the mining lease, the Collector shall consider the claim of the petitioner. For the present, without issuing any further direction, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. (Rajendra Menon) J...
Ramesh Kumar Bagri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2014/2013 1.3.2013 Shri Arubendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.17/2013 registered at P.S.Nagod, District Satna for the offence punishable under Section 408/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal past. He is the Salesman of Gram Panchayat Khaira. Nothing is required to be seized from his possession. He is ready to Co.operate in the investigation. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts...
Ashish JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
1 W.P.No.2966/2013 1.3.2013 Applicant Shri Ashish Jain along with his Counsel Shri Nitin Jain. State is represented by Shri Ashok Chourasiya. Respondents No.5 and 6 are represented by their counsel and respondent No.6 the Corpus is also present. On going through the material available on record and taking note of the statement made by respondent No.6 before this Court it transpires that petitioner and respondent No.6 are married, there is family dispute between them and respondent No.6 has left to her father's house without any misrepresentation or fraud. She makes a statement that there is no force on her, she has gone to her parents house of her own. It is also stated that she has made FIR against the petitioner. It is seen that off and on in a very casual manner Habeas Corpus petitions are filed particularly with regard to the family disputes of the nature as is indicated in this writ petition. The manner in which the writ petition has been filed cannot be appreciated by this Court....
Maniram Vs. Santo Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
W.P.No.13564/12 1/03/13 None appears for the petitioner. The petition is pending since 2012 and till date even notices have not been issued. Challenge in this writ petition is made to the inter-locutory orders dated 20/07/12 and 27/07/12 passed by the learned Court below by which the application under 7 Rule 14 (3) C.P.C. has been rejected. By the aforesaid, certain objections raised by the petitioner to the Commissioner's report and for production of the documents have been rejected. Rejection of the applications and the reason given for the same does not call for any interference in these inter locutory proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is therefore dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Rama Alias Manorama Shukla Vs. Ramakant
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.11469/2012 M.Cr.C No.11469/2012 01.03.2013 Shri S.B.Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Kathar, Advocate for the respondent. This petition has been preferred for restoratioin of M.Cr.C No.11520/2009 that has been dismissed for want of prosecution in the event of none-appearance of the petitioner for two consecutive dates. Prayer for restoration is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that there is no provision for restoration of petitions those dismissed for want of prosecution. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interest of justice court can always pass suitable ordeRs.In view of the fact that cause of absence was spelling mistake crept in the name of counsel of the petitioner resulted in failure to search the case on the basis of name of the counsel through internet. Though it is not to be a very convincing ground, but considering overall impact of such absence and in the interest of justice, it is d...
Jitendra Singh Yadav Vs. Gurh Finance Ltd.(Th:mr.Ajay Kumar)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
1 Writ Appeal No.1065/2012 01.03.2013 Shri R.K.Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Being aggrieved by order dated 8.8.2012 passed in W.P.No.10437/2012, appellant has preferred this Intra-Court Appeal under Section 2(1) of The M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The appellant had preferred the petition against the action of respondent No.1 who had proceeded under Section 13 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. As also against the order passed by respondent No.2, Collector District Bhopal in exercise of his power under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. Learned Single Judge while taking note of various decision by Supreme Court had declined to entertain the writ petition giving the liberty to the petitioner to submit necessary application to the 2 respondent No.1 Bank praying to realize the amount by fixing some installment and the authorities to consider the same if permissible unde...
Premshnakar Vs. Suresh Chandra Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
W.P.No.13281/12 1/03/13 Shri Hemant Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Challenging the order passed by the learned Court below allowing an application filed by the respondent under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C. , this writ petition has been filed. When the witness in question namely Prem Shankar was being examined, he has stated that son of one Kamla Bai is Suresh Chandra Verma. However, it was found by the Court that the name of the son is Suresh Chandra Yadav and not Suresh Chandra Verma and, therefore, witness should not be called for. After taking note of the material available on record and finding a typing error, the Court has rejected the application. The action taken by the Court and the reasons given by the Court cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference into the matter is called for. The Court has found that after due scrutiny of the record, it is not necessary to recall the witness for correcting the name. Accordingly, th...
Maniram @ Maniram Raikwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.2453/2012 01.03.2013 Shri Y.K.Gupta , counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.27214/2012, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not present at the time of judgment pronounced by the appellate Court. He went to Delhi to do his job of labour and therefore, he had no knowledge of the conviction. Hence, a delay of 28 days is caused in filing the present revision. Looking to the grounds stated by the applicant, application is allowed. The delay of 28 days in filing the present revision is hereby condoned. Also heard on admission as well as I.A.No.27213/2012, an application for suspension of sentence. It would be proper to peruse the records of both the Courts below before considering the aforesaid issues. Office is directed to call for the records of the both the Courts below and place the same before this Co...
Narmada @ Guddu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
Criminal Appeal No.2205/07 1.3.13. Shri Prashant Chourasia, learned counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Agarwal, learned GA for State. IA No.23280/11 for suspension of sentence and release of appellant no.1 Narmada alias Guddu on bail . It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that appellant is in custody since 18.11.06 and a period of near about more than six years have elapsed since the date of custody. It is submitted by the appellant that in the dying declaration, no specific act has been attributed to the appellant though the deceased had stated names of two Jeths, namely, Sitaram and Narmada Prasad, but without indicating the role of appellant. It is further submitted that brother of appellant, namely, Sitaram has already been released on bail. So far as appellant is concerned, he is in custody since last more than six yeaRs.This appeal is of the year 2007 and may take some time in hearing. On the aforesaid ground, it is submitted by the counsel for the appel...
Prabhudayal Pardhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.13138/2012 01.03.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. As prayed by counsel for the applicant, sometime may be given to mention the specific amount by which the applicant wants to deposit the sum. Case be listed under the same head in the week commencing from 11.3.2013. (N.K.Gupta) Judge pnkj M.Cr.C.No.990/2013 26.02.2013 Shri Shreyas Pandit, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is a repeat bail application on behalf of the present applicant, whereas his previous application was dismissed in want of prosecution vide order dated 6.12.2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.10103/2012. The applicant is in custody since 25.7.2012 relating to crime No.23/12 registered at Police Station Majhgawan, Tahsil Sihora, District Jabalpur for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) SC/ST (Preventi...
- ‹ Prev
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- Next ›