Skip to content

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.

Mar 22 2013

M.P.Rajya Vidyut Mandal Vs. Damodar

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-22-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.498/2009 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Mandal (M.P.P.K.V.V.Co.Ltd.) VERSUS Bhagwandas Criminal Revision No.499/2009 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Mandal (M.P.P.K.V.V.Co.Ltd.) VERSUS Prem Harijan Criminal Revision No.525/2008 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Mandal (M.P.P.K.V.V.Co.Ltd.) VERSUS Damodar Criminal Revision No.526/2008 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Mandal (M.P.P.K.V.V.Co.Ltd.) VERSUS Nanhe Bhai Criminal Revision No.527/2008 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Mandal (M.P.P.K.V.V.Co.Ltd.) VERSUS Uddyet Choudhary and another -:- 2 -:- Criminal Revisions No.498/09,499/09 525/08, 526/08, 527/08, 1142/2008 Criminal Revision No.1142/2008 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Mandal (M.P.P.K.V.V.Co.Ltd.) VERSUS Nijam --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Names of counsel for the parties in Criminal Revisions No.498/200...


Mar 22 2013

Mukundlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-22-2013

Mcr.C.No.3504 o22. 03.13 None for the applicants. Shri R.P.Tiwari, GA for the respondent/state. This case is listed today for appropriate order on the question of default. It is apparent from the proceedings dated 25.4.2008 that the applicants were extending the period of two weeks to remove the default but in compliance of such direction, no steps have been taken on behalf of any of the applicants to cure the default in last near about five yeaRs.In such premises, it appears that the applicants are no more interested in prosecuting this petition. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed on account of non- compliance of the direction of the court as well as for want of prosecution. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL...


Mar 22 2013

Municipal Council Malanjkhand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-22-2013

WP No.22109/12 22.03.13. Shri Kapil Jain, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for respondents 1 to 9 and 13. Shri R.K.Sanghi, learned counsel for respondent no.10. Heard on IA No.4401/13. As prayed in the application, learned PL appearing for respondent no.1 to 9 and 13 is directed to give the copy of return to counsel for respondent no.10 within a period of three days. IA No.4401/13 stands disposed of. Service on respondent no.11 and 12 be awaited. Registry is directed to verify the service on respondent no.11 and 12. Learned counsel for parties submit that matter is to be argued by outside counsel, therefore, a fixed date may be given. On the request of learned counsel for parties, list this petition on 15.04.2013 for admission and also for consideration of IA No.16777/12. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk....


Mar 22 2013

M/S VipIn Kumar Bhaiyalal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-22-2013

W.P.21129/2012.(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/...


Mar 22 2013

M.P.Rajya Vidyut Mandal Vs. Sandeep

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-22-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.528/2008 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Mandal (M.P.P.K.V.V.Co.Ltd.) VERSUS Sandeep Criminal Revision No.535/2009 Sandeep VERSUS Madhya Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Mandal (M.P.P.K.V.V.Co.Ltd.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Names of counsel for the parties in Criminal Revisions No.528/2008 Shri O.P.Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, counsel for the respondent. Names of counsel for the parties in Criminal Revision No.535/2009 Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, counsel for the applicant. Shri O.P.Mishra, counsel for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 22nd day of March, 2013) These two revision applications were filed against the common judgment dated 21.1.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge under Electricity Act (hereinafter it -:- 2 -:- ...


Mar 22 2013

Smt. Santoshi Bai Vs. Shri Durgesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-22-2013

W.P. No. 4249 Of 2013 22.3.2013 Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against interlocutory order dated 26.2.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue; whereby, it has declined to grant an injunction in a Revision Petition, which arises from the order passed by Divisional Commissioner who dismissed petitioner's appeal against the order of her removal from the post of Kotwar. Petitioner was appointed as Kotwar in place of her fatherin law by order dated 28.2.2011 passed by Tahsildar, Ghoradongri, which was in pursuance to order dated 22.2.2011; whereby, along with petitioner two more contenders, viz., Sukhlal and Durgesh were considered for appointment as Kotwar. Petitioner's appointment was challenged by Durgesh in an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Shahpur. That, by order dated 29.8.2011 the Sub Divisional O...


Mar 22 2013

Sadhna Pandey Vs. Prakash Chand Jain

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-22-2013

1 M.Cr. C No.921/13 22.3.2013 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Shobitadtiya, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. On behalf of applicant/accused this petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of the order dated 9.11.2012, passed by Special Sessions Judge Bhopal, in Criminal Revision No.478/11, affirming the order dated 7.7.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class Bhopal, in Criminal complaint case No.18427/09, whereby, his application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.for appropriate direction to the respondent to produce the information regarding Income Tax return and banking account, has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the orders impugned so also the averments of the petition. It is apparent from the orders of the trial Court that by way of impugned application the applicant prayed to direct the respondent to produce the copy of Income Tax return a...


Mar 22 2013

Smt. Rekha Mishra Vs. Shyam Kishore

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-22-2013

1 W.P. No. 1697 Of 2012 22.3.2013 Shri S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Heard. Order dated 25.11.2011 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Majhauli district Sidhi in Civil Suit No.23 A/2010 is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By impugned order the Trial Court closed the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence. The suit at the instance of petitioner is under Section 34/38 of Specific Relief Act in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos. 216, 252, 254 admeasuring 0.04 hectare, 2.85 hectare and 0.61 hectare respectively at Patwari Circle Rampur, Majhouli. On 25.11.2011 faced with certain difficulties in producing his witnesses petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking adjournment. ...


Mar 22 2013

Kallu Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-22-2013

M.Cr.C.No.3125/2013 22.3.2013 Shri Mukesh Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. Shri Deependra Mishra, Advocate for the objector. 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.41/2013 registered at P.S.Ajaygarh, District Panna for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294, 307, 506-B of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. According to the prosecution story, it is alleged against the applicant that he assaulted complainant by using lathi, therefore, no case under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. At the most, the case of the applicant would fall under Section 323 of the IPC. The applicant has no criminal past. A counter case has also been registered against the complainant party vide Crime No.40/2013 for the...


Mar 22 2013

Amit Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-22-2013

Cr.R.No.2313/2012 22.3.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Nishant Datt, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST. No.152/2012 whereby the charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C is framed against the applicant. The prosecution's case in short is that, the applicant exploited the deceased sexually since long and the deceased committed suicide in the house of the applicant at Bhopal within the period 7.9.2011 to 11.9.2011 and the applicant himself informed the Police about her death. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts of the case, it is apparent that there was no relation of the deceased with the applicant so th...


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial