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.
Ram Prasad Bais Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
1 W.P. No. 4194 Of 2013 20.3.2013 Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent State, on advance notice. Heard. Order dated 15.12.2012 passed by Collector, Singrauli, district Singrauli is being assailed vide this petition. By impugned order respondent No. 2 Collector has rejected the application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and declined to refer the matter for determination of the compensation by the Court. It is not in dispute that land in question of the petitioner was acquired for Mahan Aluminum Smelter & Captive Power Project. An award was passed on 20.4.2011 and a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was issued on 20.4.2011. It is the stand of the petitioner that while declining to accept the compensation determined by Land Acquisition Officer, an application was filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before Collector on 23.5.2011 for referr...
inayat HusseIn Khaishgi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
M.Cr.C. No.3333/2013 20.3.2013 Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri Rahul Shamra, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Kumar Singh, GA, for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 26/2013 registered at Police Station Dhangaon, District Khandwa for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, who have no criminal past alleged against him. It is alleged against this applicant that he was SubEngineer in MANREGA, Janpad Panchayat, Khandwa and during his tenure he misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2,19,000/. Applicant is ready to deposit a sum Rs. 2,00,000/ under protest in the Office of Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Kh...
Anil Kumar Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3186/2013 20.3.2013 Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, 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 17.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.102/2013 registered at P.S.Vaidhan, District Singrouli for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Charge sheet has been filed. Nothing is required to be seized from the possession of the applicant. 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 and submitted that the applicant has the previous criminal record. As many as four cases have been registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 380 of the IPC, therefore, this applica...
Shyam Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1506/1999 Shyam Singh and others VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashok Chakrawarty, counsel for the applicants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 19th day of March, 2013) The applicants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 147 of IPC and section 3 of Protection of Civil Rights Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'The PCR Act') vide judgment dated 19.3.1997 passed by the learned JMFC, Raisen (Shri N.P.Singh) in criminal case No.186/1996 and imposed a fine of Rs.100/- and one month's simple imprisonment for the aforesaid offences respectively upon each of the applicants. In criminal appeal No.37/1997, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raise...
Jamuna Prasad Dubey Vs. Sakuchand and ors
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
(1) Civil Revision No.744/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Civil Revision No.744 / 2003 Applicant : Jamuna Prasad Dubey, S/o. Ram Gopal Dubey, R/o. Village Devri, P.S. Jaisinghnagar, District Shahdol, Vehicle Owner at present R/o. Police lines, Shahdol, District Shahdol (M.P.) Vs. Respondents :1. Sakuchand, S/o. Radhu Kol, R/o. Balnour, P.S. Manpur, Tehsil Bandhavgarh, District Umaria 2. Kumari Gunita, D/o. Sakuchand Kol, miNo.3. Pradeep Kumar, S/o. Sakuchand Kol, Both are minot through their guardians father respondent no.1 and R/o. Balhour, District Umaria.4. Abitabh Kumar, S/o. Nandilal Namdeo, R/o. Manpur, P.S. Manpur, District Umaria (M.P.) ________________________________________________________ Shri Ravendra Tiwari, Advocate for applicant. Ku. Anjali Banarjee, Advocate for respondent no.5. None for other respondents through served. _________________________________________________________ (2) Civil...
Krishna Pratap Yadav Vs. Dilip Singh Shekhwat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Conc. No. 69 Of 2012 20.3.2013 None for the petitioner. Shri M.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents. Present contempt petition is filed complaining non compliance and willful disobedience of order dated 19.9.2011 passed in W.P. No. 15788/2011 (S). The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to respondents to consider the regularization as the petitioner claimed that he completed 12 years of service as dailywager. The petition was disposed of in following terMs.Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioners, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and the circulars issued by the State Government and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On receiving the notice of present conte...
Achchelal @ Jyare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2022/2013 20.3.2013 Shri Raman Patel, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL, for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 21.9.2012 in connection with Crime No.82/12 registered at Police Station Madiyado, District Damoh for offence punishable under Sections 363, 364-A, 366-A, 376 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution, prosecutrix was abducted by co-accused Durja @ Dhurjan, he committed rape on her. The only allegation against the applicant is that he had taken a sum of Rs.15,000/- and sent the prosecutrix back to her home. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties along with facts and c...
Rambahor Vs. Ramnaresh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Mcr.C.No.2103 o20. 03.13 Shri Dinesh Prasad Patel, counsel for the applicants. None for the respondents. Applicants/ party No.1, have preferred this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2013 (Anenx.A-6) passed by the ASJ.Amarpatan District Satna in Cr.R.No.197/12 allowing the revision of the respondents and by setting aside the order dated 20.1.12 passed by the SDM Amarpatan in criminal case No.3/10 whereby in a proceedings of section 145 of the Cr.P.C, the possession of the disputed property was directed to be given from the receiver to the applicants, the case has been remanded to the court of SDM with a direction to decide the applicants application for delivery of possession of the property to them afresh with some directions enumerated in para-13 of the impugned order.2. Initially, after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order, applicants counsel argued that before attachment of the property by the...
Raman @ Ramdas Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1430/1999 Raman alias Ramdas. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 20th day of March, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC vide judgment dated 12.10.1998 passed by the JMFC Damoh (Shri U.S.Mishra) in Criminal Case No.339/1998 and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.500/-. In Criminal Appeal No.57/1998 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh vide judgment dated 17.9.1999 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with both the judgments, the applicant has filed the prese...
Bhaiyalal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Criminal Revision No.408/2013 20.03.2013 Shri Narendra Nikhare, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.1.2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in S.T.No.231/12, whereby the application of the prosecution under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.was allowed and the applicant was directed to give his specimen signatures. The prosecution's case in short is that, one trial is initiated against the applicant before the trial Court and an application has been received from the document of State Examiner PHQ, Bhopal that the specimens sent to the examiner were not sufficient and therefore, his specimen signatures may be obtained. Under such circumstances, the prosecution applied for specimen signatures of the applicant. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that a mistake has been crapped up in the order that i...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »