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.
Dibbu @ Devendra Sahu Vs. Smt.Geeta Bai Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Cr.R.No.2228/2012 20.3.2013 Shri Manot Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri K.B.Bhatnagar, counsel for the respondent. In the light of the provisions under Section 33(7) of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 the learned counsel for the applicant prays to withdraw the present revision. Prayer is allowed. The revision filed by the applicant Dibbu @ Devendra Sahu against the judgment dated 18.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandla in Criminal Appeal No.71/2012 is hereby dismissed being withdrawn. The applicant may obtain the certified copy of the impugned judgment if photo-copy is filed in the present case. Copy of the order be send to the trial Court as well as the appellate Court along with their record for information. (N.K.Gupta) Judge bina...
Dharmu Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Criminal Revision No.485/2013 20.03.2013 Shri O.P.Tripathi, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 6.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod District Satna in S.T.No.10/13, whereby the applicant was found to be a major person and thefore, notice was given as to why his interim bail application may not be dismissed. Facts of the case, in short are that, the applicant was being tried before the Sessions Court for a Sessions triable offences. An objection was raised by the applicant that he was juvenile and therefore, an interim bail was granted. Thereafter, an enquiry was made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod vide order dated 6.3.2013. He has directed that the applicant was not juvenile and therefore, he proceeded further accordingly. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circu...
Gajadhar Vs. Rameshwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
W.P. No. 2047 Of 2010 20.3.2013 Shri P.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.K. Choubey, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Heard. Order dated 2.2.2010 passed by Second Civil Judge Class II, Amarpatan, Satna in Civil Suit No. 498 A/2006 is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By impugned order four applications filed by petitioner/ defendant under Order 13 Rule 10, Order 26 Rule 10, Order 11 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 have been rejected. The petitioners have, however, confined the challenge only to the rejection of application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC. Vide application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC petitioners sought summoning of original record of decided civil suit No. 52 A/1999 from record room, Satna to demonstrate from the written statement filed therein by the p...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. the Account Audit Officer,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
W.P.No.3082/13 20/03/13 Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order dated 12 th February, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No.1019/10 whereby claim made by the petitioner for considering his candidature for appointment in a recruitment process being initiated has been rejected. Petitioner was employed as a casual labour in the year 1997. His services were terminated in January, 2001. This termination was challenged by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.95/04. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 6/05/05 and, therefore, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court being W.P.No.15555/07 (s).This petition was also dismissed on 1/02/10. However, while dismissing the writ petition, an observation was made to the effect that petitioner's candidature be considered in the next recruitment process and if any fresh recruitment process is undertaken, preference be ...
Ramdas Vs. Sukche
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Mcr.C.No.3387 o20. 03.13 Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, counsel for the applicants. Shri Pramod Chourasia, PL for respondent No.2/ state. The applicants have filed this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.12 passed by JMFC Garhakota, district Sagar in a private complaint filed by the respondent bearing criminal case No.222/12 whereby the cognizance for the offence of section 323 read with section 34 of the IPC was taken against each of the applicants. Initially, after taking me through the papers placed on the record applicants counsel argued the case at length for quashment of the impugned order taking cognizance against the applicants for the above mentioned offence. His main arguments was that such order has been passed by the trial court without extending any opportunity of hearing to the applicants. On asking the counsel that under what provision of law such court was bound to hear the applicants before taking any cognizance against them , on wh...
Sunder Singh Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.776/2013 20.3.2013 Shri Rajesh Sen, 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 22.2.2012 in connection with Crime No.43/2012 registered at P.S.Majhgawan, District Satna for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. According to the prosecution, it is alleged that applicant assaulted complainant by an Axe. The applicant inflicted only a single blow, therefore, no case under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. The complainant has already been discharged from the hospital. 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. On due consideration of the contention raise...
Ganga Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.46/2013 Ganga Singh Vs. State of M.P. .................................................................................................... Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 20th day of March, 2013) The applicant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C vide judgment dated 30.7.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in Criminal Case No.1194/1997 and sentenced for one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2005 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Shahdol vide judgment dated 31.12.2012 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments passed by both the Courts below the ...
Biharilal Kushwaha Vs. Ramphal Kushwaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Criminal Revision No.238/2013 20.03.2013 Shri Shivraj Kushwaha, Advocate for the applicant. Shri L. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent. Heard on admission. By Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicant has challenged the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No.366/2010 whereby the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by the JMFC Rewa (Shri Vivekanand Trivedi) in MJ.No.16/2008 was confirmed in which the maintenance of Rs.500/- was granted to the respondent against the applicant. The respondent has moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.before the trial Court that he is 74 years old person and is suffering from various illness. He was unable to maintain himself, and therefore maintenance may be granted from the side of the applicant. In reply the applicant denied all the allegations made by the respondent. It was pleaded that the respondent was a person, who can earn his livelihood. It was also pleaded tha...
Vijay Singh Solanki Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
W.P.No.4370 of 2013. 20.3.2013. Shri Manot Kumar Agrawal for the petitioneRs.Shri Jaideep Singh for the respondents No.1,2,4 & 5. This petition is admitted for final hearing. Notice on behalf of respondents No.1,2,4 and 5 are accepted by Shri Jaideep Singh. Petitioner to serve extra copy of petition to Shri Jaideep Singh within 3 working days against acknowledgment. Issue notice to respondent No.3. Steps within a period of one week by RAD. Be listed for hearing after filing of the reply. Ad-interim writ: It is submitted by the petitioner that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner Commercial (Sales) Tax, M.P.v. Manot Kumar Agrawal, Burhanpur, (2008) 41 TLD 205.coal ash. is included in the terminology namely coal and coke because the relevant Entry No.30 of Part II, Schedule II of the M.P.VAT Act further provides that the coal and coke as specified in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 except those mentioned as were in the schedule and section 14 of ...
Pradeep Kumar Bais Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
1 W.P. No. 4184 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »