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.
Mahendra Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
1 W.P.No.5128o22. 3.2013 Shri Rajnish Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Heard. Issue notice to respondents of this petition on payment of PF within three clear working days by RAD mod returnable within four weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.1,90,000 has been deposited by receive no10158 on 28.1.2013 and Rs.17,700/- has also been deposited on 28.1.2013 through receipt no.10159 against (Kalateet) loan and interest (default) so order dated 11.3.2013 Annexure P/5 order not Vidhi/2012/346 passed by respondent no.2 Dy. Commissioner Coopeartive Disdtrict Hoshangabad, may kindly be stayed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that operation of the impugned order Annexure P/5 shall remain stayed till next date of hearing. C c as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE Ag/...
M/Sgopilal Radheshyam Modi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
W.P.21141/2012.(O) 22.3.2013 Shri S. Gulatee, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Sarvate, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that he has been recently being engaged by respondent no.3 and he has to file Vakalatnama . He wants two weeks' time to file reply. Prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner hence time is granted. I.R.granted earlier to continue till next date of hearing. List this petition alongwith all connected matter for analogous hearing after two weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE Ag/...
Niyaz Ahmad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
W.P.No.3874/2013 22.03.2013 Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on advance copy. It is stated by learned counsel for he petitioner that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.5716/2005 (s).Smt. Jyoti Mehta versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 02.05.2005. It is further contended that the issue relating to the claim made by the petitioner was again decided by this Court in W.P.No.17875/10 filed by M.P.Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh versus State of M.P.and otheRs.decided on 04.02.2011. It is contended that the decision rendered by this Court has further been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.597/2011, State of M.P.and others versus M.P.Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh, decided on 22.06.2011. It is contended that since the SLP is already pending, directions given by Division Bench in the case of M.P.Madhyamik Shikshak S...
M/S Ashok Kumar and Company Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
W.P.21144/2012.(O) 22.3.2013 Shri S. Gulatee, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Sarvate, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that he has been recently being engaged by respondent no.3 and he has to file Vakalatnama . He wants two weeks' time to file reply. Prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner hence time is granted. I.R.granted earlier to continue till next date of hearing. List this petition alongwith all connected matter for analogous hearing after two weeks. Certified copy as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE Ag/...
Dhirendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
1 W.P.No.4434o22. 3.2013 Shri Dharmendra Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain,Government Advocate, for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 on advance notice. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to invoke the power of this Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by commanding respondent No.2 to decide pending representations Annexures P/2 and P/3 within a stipulated period. Perused annexeures P/2 and P/3 dated 19.12.2011 and 4.3.2012 respectively which are pending before respondent no.2. This petition is disposed of with a direction that on filing a fresh representation alongwith copy of this order by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today before respondent no.2 then respondent no.2 shall make all endeavors to decide the same within a period of thirtee days from the date of receipt of the representation. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE Ag/...
Suresh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3348/2013 22.3.2013 Shri S.K.Dixit, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL 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 29.1.2013 in connection with Crime No./P.O.R.No.527/08 registered at P.S.Forest Circle, Madiyadon, District Damoh for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39, 50, 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. All the offences are triable by the Magistrate. 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 consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, there...
Akhil Bau Mandaliya Sarvashiromani Muni Samaj Gorakhpur Vs. the State ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
WP No.4010.13 Writ Petition No.4010 of 2013 (Akhil Bhu Mandaliya Sarvashiromani Muni Samaj Gorakhpur versus State of M.P.and four otheRs.22-03-2013 Shri J. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Petitioner, a registered society claiming itself to be the owner of the land bearing KhaSr.No.11/1, new KhaSr.No.38, admeasuring 37.38 acres in village Khanjanpur, Betul, seeks direction that respondents be restrained from taking possession/ownership of 15000 sq. metre land out of KhaSr.No.38 for construction of Kanya Krida Parisar. It is borne out from the pleadings in paragraph 5.11 that the petitioner in respect of subject land has filed a Civil Suit No.70-A/2011 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Betul, challenging action of respondents wherein an interim order has been passed on 05-03-2012 that no action in respect of land marked in red of KhaSr.No.38/1be taken without recouRs.to law. The petitioner since has already availed the remedy of Civil Suit a simultaneous proceed...
Bablu Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3557/2013 22.3.2013 Shri Bhupendra Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This application has been filed by the applicants for modification of order dated 14.3.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.14277/2012. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants filed M.Cr.C.No.14277/2012 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail and this Court released both the applicants on bail vide order dated 14.3.2013, however, due to typographical error, the order was passed with respect to only one applicant in place of both the applicants, therefore, the order dated 14.3.2013 be modified to that extent. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State raised no objection. I have gone through the order dated 14.3.2013 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.14277/2012 and the case diary. It appears that the bail was granted by this Court to both the applicants, however, due to typographical mistake, the order was passed only with respect to one applicant. I...
Satish Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.361/2013 Satish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Ashish Sinha, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 22nd day of March, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 31.10.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (Shri Aayan Girdoniya), Sehore in criminal case no.813/11 and sentenced for 14 months' S.I. with fine of `500/-. In criminal appeal no.299/12, the learned Sessions Judge, Sehore maintained the conviction but the sentence was reduce...
Jamba @ Ramkhelawan Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-2013
1 Cr. Appeal No.1892/11 22.3.2013 Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Heard on I.A.No.3434/13, a repeat application on behalf of appellant for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as his earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 2.3.2012, by extending a liberty to revive the prayer after 8 months and it appears that the present I.A.has been preferred under such liberty. Appellant has been has been convicted under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of N.D.P.S.Act for five years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- for having the possession of 5.670 Kg, the contraband substance the Ganja. Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced, looking to the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution so also the circumstances that during trial between 15.7.2009 to 22.2.2010 i.e.more than 5 months, the appellant was remained in judicial custody and since the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »