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.
Govardhan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
W.P.No.4047/2013 21/3/2013 : Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents, on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit of second kramonnati has not been extended to the petitioners and certain recoveries have been ordered against them on account of cancellation of orders of Krammonati. It is contended that the benefit of krammonati as was extended by the State Government was squarely applicable in the case of the petitioners and this was done. The benefit was extended to them, but later on saying that such a Circular is not applicable, recovery has been ordered and, therefore, they are required to approach this Court. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Vajra Sen Jain versus The State of M.P.& Others [ Writ Petition No.824/2004 (s) ].decided on 15.9.2009, by Gwalior Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that such a benefit wa...
Munna Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2058/2013 21/03/2013 Shri Madan Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Shri A.K.Singh, GA for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicants have been arrested on 3/01/2013 in connection with Crime No.8/13 registered at P.S.Pathariya, District Damoh for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant no.1 is father-in-law and applicant no.2 is brother-in-law (devar) of deceased Kanchan who died within 7 years of her marriage. It is further submitted that there is only general allegation against these applicants in regard to cruelty and demand of dowry. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to these applicants. Learned co...
Ranjeet Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
1 W.P. No.3795/2013 21.3.2013 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri S. M. Lal, learned Panel Lawyer, on advance notice for respondents/State. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy involved in this case is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Others S.L.P. (Civil) No.18881/06 and this case may be decided in the light of aforesaid judgment.2. The Apex Court in Asha Saxena (Supra) considering the controversy involved in the case held thus :- The appellant herein was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Girls' Higher Secondary School, Mama Ka Bazar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 19.9.1981. Prior to entry into service, the appellant had in 1972 acquired B.Ed. Degree. According to the appellant, at the time of entry into service she was entitled to two advance increments in accordance with a Circular issued by the State Government on 21.9.1974, which reads as follows: "Pointwise clarification of the querie...
Rajesh Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3542/2013 21.3.2013 Shri Mahendra Pateria, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Pushpraj Singh, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.6543/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.162/2013 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Shahdol for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant No.1 is husband, applicant No.2 is mother-in-law and applicant No.3 is unmarried sister-in-law of complainant. Previously also complainant lodged the report against the applicants for committing cruelty in relation to demand of dowry, which matter was compromised. It is a matrimonial case, in the event of arrest, chances of compromise between the parties, if any, will be diminished, therefore, applicants be released on ad-interim anticipatory...
Smt. Vimla Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1594/2013 21.3.2013 Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicants are in custody since 20.8.2012 in connection with Crime No.377/2012 registered at P.S.Madhav Nagar, District Katni for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 34 & 302 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant No.1 is a lady and applicant No.2 is a young boy of 19 years of age. He is a student. According to the prosecution, applicant No.1 Vimla Bai is alleged to have caused injuries to mother of the complainant. Nothing has been alleged against her that she assaulted deceased Sohan Singh. The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the applic...
Pushpendra Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2197/2013 21.3.2013 Shri Sudeep Patel, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. Applicants are in custody since 15.1.2013 in connection with Crime No.21/2013 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. According to the prosecution story, 194 bulk liters of illicit liquor alleged to have been seized from the possession of the applicants. The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised b the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view tha...
Dhanraj Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
1 M. Cr.C.No.14676/12. 21.3.2013 . Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, learned counsel for the respondent. Although this case is listed today for admission and consideration of stay application but in view of available factual matrix of the matter with the consent of the parties this petition is heard finally. ORDER (ORAL) The applicant/ accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2012 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur in Criminal Revision No.104/12 affirming the order dated 2.9.2009 passed by JMFC Gadarwara in Criminal Case No.1076/2009, whereby in a private complaint filed by the respondent for prosecution of the applicant the cognizance of the offence of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record and the averments of the petition argued that the impugned cogniz...
ShirIn Vs. Smt. Kavita
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12444 of 2012 M.Cr.C.No.12444 o21. 03.2013 Shri G.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Awinash Jargar, learned counsel for the respondent. In compliance of the earlier direction, this case is listed today for final hearing at motion stage, hence with the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. ORDER (Oral) (1) The applicants who are impleaded as not applicants before the trial court in application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act 2005, in short The Act., have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.2012, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khandwa, in MJ.No.175/12, whereby taking the cognizance on the aforesaid application the direction to issue the notices of the same to the applicants has been passed. The prayer for quashment of such entire proceeding is made in this petition. (2) After taking me through the entire papers placed on record alongwith the aforesaid ...
Dr. Surendra Nath Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
W.P.No.3811/2013 21/3/2013 : Shri Dhananjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner was working as a Ayurvedic Medical Officer and claims grant of not practicing allowance. The question involved in this writ petition and the relief prayed for already stands decided by this Court in W.P.No.5269/2007 (s) on 8.9.2010. Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by this Court in the similar circumstances in W.P.No.5850/2003 and W.P.No.5269/2007 (s) and decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mr.mishra...
Ramdas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
W.P. No.21791 Of 2011 21.3.2013 Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The petition is for following direction: (i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to not remove the petitioners from their house, where they are living since long back and possessing the permanent lease granted by the state govt. in the year 1984, 1998 under the Madhya Pradesh Nagirya Kshetron Ke Bhumiheen Vyaktiyon ke Pattadhikaron ka Pradan Kiya Jana Adhiniyam, 1984. (ii) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to No. to take any coercive action against the petitioners and their houses. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct to the authority of the Manav Adhikar Ayog and any other competent authority to inquire the matter regarding illegal act of the respondents they are misusing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »