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.
M.P.Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co.Ltd. Vs. MaiyadIn Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
F.A. No.214/2009 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.214/2009 1. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. Through its Chairman cum Managing Director Shakti Bhawan, Rampur, Jabalpur 2. Executive Engineer O & M Division, M.P.S.E.B. Prem Nagar Satna (M.P.) 3 Junior Engineer, M.P.S.E.B. O&M Division Distribution Centre Rampur Baghelan, Distt. Satna (M.P.) (Officer Incharge for appellants Aleem Khan Executive Engineer, O&M, Division, MPPKVVCL Satna ...Appellants/Defendants -Versus- 1. Maiyadin Sahu s/o Shri Parmeshwardeen Sahu 2. Smt. Kusum Kali Sahu w/o Shri Maiyadin Sahu Both are resident of village Lohroura, P.S. & Tehsil Nagoud, Dist. Satna (M.P.) ... Respondents/plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Mukesh Agarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Kapil Patwardhan, Advocate for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------...
Shyam Singh Paraste Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3273/2013 26.3.2013 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL, for the State. Heard on IA No.7228/2013, an application for urgent hearing. Considering the averment, application is allowed. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 12.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.14/2013 registered at Police Station Rajendragram, District Anuppur for offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicant that at the relevant time i.e.June 2010 to April 2012 he was Data Entry Operator in the District Education Centre. It is further alleged that he was involved in conspiracy of mis- appropriation of the amount. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that co-accused Shashi Kant Pandit has already been released on bail by this Court...
VipIn Thukral Vs. Rajmata Vijay Raje ScIndia Krishi Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
W.P.No.14144/2011 26.03.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri T.K.Khadka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Himanshu Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.2. The return has been filed in this case. The petition is listed for hearing. However, it is contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in some other analogous writ petitions, returns have not been filed by the respondents. In some of the petitions, though returns have been filed but have not been adopted in other petitions. In view of the aforesaid, let adoptive returns be filed by the respondents and the copies of the same be served on learned counsel for the petitioner in each case. Let the petition be listed in the week commencing 22nd April, 2013 for final disposal at motion stage. Interim relief to continue. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Dhanraj Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3778/2013 26.3.2013 Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL, for the State. With the consent of the parties heard finally. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.80/2013 registered at Police Station Kolar Road District Bhopal for offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of M.P.Excise Act. As per prosecution, it is alleged that 60 bulk liters illicit liquor is said to have been seized from the possession of the applicant as well as his co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 20.2.2013. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case alongwith gravity of offence and period of custo...
A.K. Chakravarty Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
1 W.P.No.4700/2013 26/3/2013: Shri Siddhart Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner has made a complaint with regard to the harassment of respondent No.7 with regard to daughter of the petitioner. Complaint has been submitted before respondents No.3, 4, 5 and 6 and grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken. Taking note of the grievance, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with copy of complaint, respondents No.3, 4, 5 and 6 shall look into the matter and if required adequate and necessary protection to the petitioner shall also be granted. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.today. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Dr. Vijay Kumar Adlakhe Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
W.P.No.6110/2012 26.03.2013 Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Pursuant to the note-sheet submitted on record vide document No.589/13, it is stated by learned Government Advocate that the matter is pending adjudication before the authorities and, if two weeks' time is allowed, decision taken in the said matter would be intimated to this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement, let the petition be listed in the week commencing 22nd April, 2013 for final disposal at motion stage. A copy of the order be made available to learned Government Advocate for compliance of the directions. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...
Laxmi Kant Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1820/1999 Laxmikant VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 26th day of March, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC vide judgment dated 16.10.1999 passed by the learned JMFC, Sagar (Shri Ajay Kumar Singh) in Criminal Case No.740/1998 and sentenced with 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-. In Criminal Appeal No.154/1999 the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar vide judgment dated 7.12.1999 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below the applicant has preferred the present revision.2. The prose...
Dinesh Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
1 W.P.No.4967/2013 26/3/2013: Shri Mrigendra Singh with Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondent. At this stage Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appears for respondent No.6. A copy of petition along with annexures be served on Shri Pandey, who may seek instructions and file reply. Notice be issued to other respondents on payment of P.F.within one week. It is seen that petitioner is an elected Sarpanch and vide order dated 16.11.2012 Annexure P/13 the Sub Divisional Officer has exercised the power under Section 40(1) of M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and removed the petitioner. Petitioner is removed only because a direction to pay Rs.1,45,978/- to one Smt. Leela Devi has not been complied with . However, the contention of the petitioner is that before exercising the powers under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam no enquiry has been conducted, no show cause notice has been given and no opportunity of defense is extended...
Ramkumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
M.Cr.C. No.3796/2013 26.3.2013 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava , counsel for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL , for the respondent/State. Heard. Admit. Call for the case diary. Also heard on IA No.7011/2013. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.6/2013 registered at Police Station Taradehi, Tahsil Tendukheda, District Damoh for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. Learned counsel further submits that father of the prosecutrix has filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Damoh for withdrawing the complaint lodged against the applicant. Prosecutrix and her parents have filed the affidavits in favour of the present applicant before the court. The applican...
In Reference Vs. Laxman Prasad Gohal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-2013
CONC 1713 12 CONC No.1713 o26. 03/2013 Shri P.R.Bhave, learned senior counsel with Shri B.P.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. Respondent is also present in person. The respondent was called upon by order dated 20- 09-2012 as to why he be not punished for deliberate concealing the fact that order dated 31- 08-2006 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal was affirmed by order dated 14- 09-2007 passed in O.A.No.1781/2007 and yet got the order dated 31-08-2006 reviewed by the Tribunal. Responding to the show cause respondent fairly submits that there was a mistake on his part which he should not have committed. It is urged that his mistake may be pardoned. Taking into consideration the explanation tendered by the respondent we condone his mistake and discharge him of the rule. Proceeding dropped. Rule nisi discharged. (AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE SC...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »