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/S Durga Industries Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
1 W.P. No. 1701 Of 2013 21.3.2013 Shri Girish Kekre, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1. Ms. Surabhi Nigam, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Orders dated 13.8.2012 and 15.1.2013 are being assailed vide this petition. By order dated 13.8.2012, Managing Director, M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Jabalpur) LTD. cancelled the allotment of Industrial Plot No. 2 and 3 situated at Integrated Infrastructure Development Centre (IIDC). Industrial Area, Lamtara district Katni for the reasons assigned therein that the petitioner violated clauses 3, 7 (A), 7 (B) and 19 of the leasedeed dated 15.9.2010. The order has been purportedly passed in exercise of powers conferred vide clause 34 of the leasedeed. Whereas, by order dated 15.1.2013 an appeal preferred by the pet...
Jairaj Singh Rathore Vs. Suresh Kumar Saxena
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
WP No.1747.12 Writ Petition No.1747 of 2012 (Jairaj Singh Rathore and another versus Suresh Kumar Saxena and six otheRs.21-03-2013 Shri R.K.Pancholi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3. Shri Amit Seth, learned senior counsel for respondent No.7. Heard. Order dated 24-11-2011 passed by 14th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in M.J.C.not OT/54/2007, is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; whereby, petitioneRs.application under Order 22 Rule 10 and application under Order 11 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been dismissed. Action is brought by respondents No.1 to 5 under section307(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 vide M.J.C.not OT/54/2007 in respect of Kanha Towers. constructed on land forming part of KhaSr.No.51 & 52, village Halalpur, Vijaynagar, Lalghati, Bhopal alleging that the same has been constructed u...
Dineshwer Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
WP 3453.13 Writ Petition No.3453 of 2013 (Ramkumar Singh (deceased) through Rambali Singh and fix others v. Sukhai (deceased) though Arjun Kol and two otheRs.08-03-2013 Shri B.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 04-09-2012 passed by Board of Revenue is being assailed vide this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. By impugned order right of respondents, who are member of Schedule Tribe Community over a piece of land being KhaSr.No.53, 54, 136, 135, 137, 138, 139, 824, 825, 826, 827, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835 and 52/1128 ad-measuring 17.19 acres situated at village Khamharia, tehsil-Rampur Baghelan, district-Satna, has been affirmed and the action taken by Sub Divisional Officer under section 170-B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, of restoring the land in favour of respondents has been upheld. Claiming it to be the ancestral property respondents brought the proceedings under section 170-B of the 1959 Code on the ground that tho...
Mahadev Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
Criminal Appeal No.2330/97 21.03.13. Shri S.K.Gangrade, learned counsel for appellant. Shri Sameer Chile, learned GA for State. Heard finally. This is an appeal preferred by appellant Mahadev feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 18th October, 1997, delivered by the then Special Judge, Balaghat in Special Criminal Case No.42/96 in which appellant has been convicted for alleged offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) and sentenced to R.I.for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine appellant to further undergo R.I.for three months. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised limited submission about the finding of conviction. He submits that there is nothing in the statement of prosecutrix (PW.1) that offence of outraging the modesty was committed on the ground of caste as prosecutrix belong to scheduled caste and appellant is a member of upper caste. His submission...
Ram Kishan Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
W.P. No.21792 Of 2011 21.3.2013 Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is for following direction: (i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to No. remove the petitioner from his house, where he is living since long back and possessing the permanent lease granted by the state govt. in the year 1984 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 petitioner and his house. (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 of their power and trying ...
Dharmendra Bhura Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR M.CR.C No.262 OF 201.Dharmendra Bhura Versus. State of M.P. and another For applicant/ : Shri Ishan Soni, Advocate. For Respondent/ : Shri R.P. Tiwari, Govt. Advocate. No.1/State. For respondent No.2 : Shri Sunil Jain, Advocate. ORDER (Oral) (21.03.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The petitioner complainant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order 30.11.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.297/12, affirming the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.20325/08 whereby in a private complaint filed by him against the respondents for his prosecution of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, his documents i.e. the alleged partnership deed and the agreement for partnership in the lack of proper stamp duty, on the same were held to be inadmissible documents with some direction to impound ...
Chatur Das Shinde and ors. Vs. Prakash Chand Singhai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
Cr.R.No.1677/1999 21.3.2013 None for the applicants. None for the respondent no.1. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent no.2. No Advocate is appearing for the applicants no.1 to 4 since last three yeaRs.Today also none is present for the applicants no.1 to 4. It appears that learned counsel for the applicants does not want to prosecute the present revision. Consequently the present revision application filed by the applicants Chatur Das Shinde, Sahakari Vipinan Samiti, Dr. S.S.Katare and Neelkanth Rao Kale against the impugned judgment dated 23.8.1999 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni in Criminal Appeal No.14/1996 is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as the revisionary Court for information. (N.K.Gupta) Judge bina...
Smt. Malti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3571/2013 21.3.2013 Shri R.S.Yadav, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Pushpraj Singh, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.6608/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.77/2013 registered at P.S.Parasiya, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Applicants are mother- in-law and sister-in-law (Jethani) of complainant Neetu. They are ladies. It is a matrimonial case, in the event of arrest, chances of compromise between the parties, if any, will be diminished, therefore, they be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overa...
Vijay @ Premlal Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
1 Criminal Appeal No.2371/97 21.03.2013. Shri Aseem Dixit, learned counsel for appellants. Shri Sameer Chile, Govt.Advocate for State. Shri Dixit submits that both the appellants have already been released after undergoing the jail sentence imposed on them by the trial Court, and he has got instructions not to press the appeal as the appeal has become infructuous. From perusal of Order dated 2.1.08 passed by this Court, it is very much clear that appellant no.1 Vijay @ Premlal did not furnish the bail and he remained in jail, and appellant no.2 Anil Singh @ None Singh was called by non-bailable warrant and on 12.12.08 he was sent back to jail. Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 304 II IPC and sentenced to R.I.for five yeaRs.It is very much clear that appellants were in jail and they 2 have already undergone the jail sentence, so the appeal has become infructuous, therefore, appeal is disposed of as infructuous. (M.A.Siddiqui) Judge. Jk....
Natthu Prasad Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
1 W.P.No.4049/2013 21/3/2013 Mr.Sanjeev K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents on advance notice. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard, finally. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seek a direction to the respondents to make payment of amount of honorarium to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of their initial appointment on the post of Shiksha karmi/Guruji. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controveRs.involved in the instant case is covered by the decision of this Court in Brajesh Kumar Tiwari v. C.E.O., Jila Panchayat and Others , 2008 (3) MPLJ 218 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners may be granted liberty to make representations to the competent authority and the petition may be disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to decide the same in the light of the decis...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »