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.
Sanjay Kumar JaIn Vs. Ku.Jainesha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1431/2006 Sanjay Kumar Jain. Vs. Ku. Jainesha. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Mukesh Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Aniruddha Pandey, Advocate for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 20th day of March, 2013) By this criminal revision, the applicant has challenged the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Revision No.31/2006, whereby the maintenance granted to the respondent was increased from Rs.500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month.2. The brief facts relating to the present revision are that the respondent has moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. through her maternal grand-father Sundarlal Jain that the marriage of Rashmi Jain took place with the applicant and on 13.5....
Anil Chandok Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Anil Chandok versus Union of India & Another Writ Petition No.3868 20. 3.2013: Shri H.R.Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging an order dated 29.1.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No.573/2010, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner is substantively holding the post of Technician under the CDMP (D) New Katni Junction, Jabalpur. In the year 2000 petitioner was deputed to work as an Announcer in Commercial Department. This deputation was on tenure posting for a period of 3 yeaRs.However, petitioner continued to work till 2010 and when the petitioner was repatriated to his parent cadre, challenge was made to the same merely on the ground that petitioner having worked as an Announcer for more than 10 years cannot be repatriated back to the parent cadre, instead should be absorbed on the post of Announcer. Learned Tribunal found that the petitioner is substantively a Technician, his posted as an Announcer, on a tenure posting for a f...
Shashank Tiwari Vs. Smt . Rekha Dwivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3368 o20. 03.2013 Shri V. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. He is heard on the question of admission. The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by the order dated 25.2.2013 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in Criminal Revision No.114/2012, affirming the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Udaipura in Criminal Case No.90/05, whereby in a private complaint filed by the respondent the plea of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been recorded against the applicant. The applicant's counsel initially argued the case at length saying that the impugned complaint has not been filed by the respondent after complying with the technical provisions of Section 138 and other relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in such premises, the impugned plea could not be recorded against the applicant and firstly prayed to set aside such plea and dismiss the compl...
Gulab Prasad Patel Vs. Sukhlal Kol
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
W.A.NO.196/2013 20-03-2013 Shri V.S.Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants. Challenge in this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,2005 is made to an order dated 15-01-2013, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.No.19927/2012 Appellants claim to be residents of the Gram Panchayat in question and it is their grievance that complaint made by them against private respondent Nos.2 to 6 with regard to financial irregularities is not being inquired into . The learned Single Judge found that in the inquiry report submitted though certain findings with regard to not following the financial rules have been indicated but no finding with regard to misappropriation was recorded, therefore, the petition was dismissed summarily. Even though the learned counsel has tried to emphasize that in the inquiry report there is a finding of misappropriation, we see no such finding in specificl terMs.The only finding ...
Lal Singh Vs. Collector of District
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
1 W.P. No. 3559 Of 2013 20.3.2013 Shri P.N. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate for respondent State, on advance notice. Heard. Petitioner, a Kotwar of village Tighra, tahsil and district Narsinghpur, claiming the ancestral right over the immovable property bearing KhaSr. Nos. 15 and 53 said to have been allotted to the ancestors of the petitioner by Malguzar prior to coming into force Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals and Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, seeks direction to the respondents to consider his claim for Bhumiswami right as per the decision taken vide circular No. F26/07/ lkr,d dated 3.3.2010 as also a decision taken by Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Tikaram and others v. State of M.P. and another W.P. No. 2064/2000 decided on 3.5.2001. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents does No. dispute the issuan...
Preetam Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1808/2013 20.3.2013 Shri Y.K.Gupta, counsel for the applicant(s).Shri Akhilendra Kumar Singh, GA, for the respondent/State. Heard. The applicants are in custody since 31.1.13 in connection with Crime No.14/2013 registered at P.S.Baityagarah, District Damoh for the offence punishable under Sections 363 & 366/34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecutrix Haribai is more than 17 years of age. She went with applicant no.1 on her own will for wondering on motorcycle but their motorcycle was got punctured therefore they not returned on the same day. When they returned back, the prosecutrix has lodged a report against the applicant. There is no allegation in regard to commit rape on her. Trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicants. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel...
Sudhakar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
1 W.P. No. 4189 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 18.5.2011 for referr...
Kailash Chandra Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.15348/2012 20.3.2013 Shri Deepak Awasthi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.157/2012 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicant that he is involved in preparing forged document in regard to the order of supplying 272 pairs of gumboots in the office of Collectorate, Tikamgarh. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has already supplied 272 pairs of gumboots in the office of Collectoreate, Tikamgarh. Receipt (A-7) has been filed in this regard. Thus, there is no prima facie case against the applicant under Section 420 of the IPC. The applicant is ready to Co...
Khemchand Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
Criminal Revision No.2411/2012 20.03.2013 Shri Vaibhav Solanki, counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicants have challenged the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T.No.161/12, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 326 or 326/34 of IPC were framed against the applicants for causing the grave injuries to the victim Smt. Chanda Agrawal by teeth bite alongwith other charges. Facts of the case relating to the present revision are that on 4.4.2014, a quarrel took place between the complainant Urmila Agrawal and the applicants. The applicants assaulted the various victims like Urmila Agrawal, Brijkishore Agrawal and Smt. Chanda Agrawal. Medical Officer vide report dated 4.4.2012 found that due to teeth bite distal phalanx of left thumb of Smt. Chanda Agrawal was missing. It was again confirmed in the MLC report on 7.4.2012. After considering the...
Rajni Kaurav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
CRR No.2149/2012 Criminal Revision No.2149/2012 20.3.2013 Shri S.B.Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Shivam Singh, counsel for the respondent No.2. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 24.9.25012 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara in S.T.No.210/2010, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 376 and 496 of IPC were not framed against the respondent No.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the prosecutrix has stated that the respondent No.2 was bent upon to marry with the prosecutrix, whereas, she knew that he was a married person. It is alleged that before 7-8 months of that alleged marriage, the prosecutrix was all alone in the house and her parents went to Bhopal then, the respondent No.2 came to her house and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, she told the entire story to her parents then, her mother became sick and her father...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »