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.
Ganesh Giri Goswami Vs. Kaneeza Bi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Mcr.C.No.1290 o18. 03.13 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Pramod Chourasia, counsel for the respondent No.2. The applicant, Suparddar of the cattle seized in the impugned criminal case, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by order dated 14.9.12 passed by V ASJ.Bhopal in Cr.R.No.388/11 affirming the order dated 7.3.08 passed by JMFC, Bhopal in criminal case No.1/08 whereby his application for appropriate direction to the respondent No.1 to pay expenses of the cattle afforded by the applicant during pendency of the interim custody, has been dismissed. In the couRs.of the arguments, in view of the provision of section 452 and 454 of the Cr.P.C, on making certain query from the applicant's counsel asking that in view of the provision of the appeal against the original judgment of the trial court whereby the applicant was directed to return the custody of the cattle to the accused why such direction was not challenged by way of appea...
Tabba @ Roop Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.300/2013 Tabba @ Roop Singh. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ashish Sinha, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 18th day of March, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of IPC vide judgment dated 31.10.2012 passed by the JMFC Sehore (Shri Vandan Mehta) in Criminal Case No.1729/2011 and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.500/- and three months' RI with fine of Rs.200/-. In Criminal Appeal No.298/2012 the learned Sessions Judge, Sehore vide judgment dated 13.2.2013 partly allowed the appeal, but neither any change in the conviction not in the sentence was made by the...
National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Vs. Badi Bahu @ Haribai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Misc. Appeal No.803/2013 18.03.2013: Shri Gulab Sohane, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8. At the consent of learned counsel for the parties they are heard finally. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 4/12/2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in Claim Case No.212/2012 only on the ground that future prospects have been considered by the learned Accident Claims Tribunal by adding 30% annual income of the deceased. 2. It is submitted that in a death case the Claims Tribunal while considering the future prospects, has added 30% annual income of the deceased who was aged more than 30 years, however, such increase was not justified as there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act to consider such enhancement on the ground of future prospects. Para16 is relevant which reads thus : cMh cgw (vk0...
Amar Nath Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
W.A.No.1238/2012 Amar Nath Singh State of M.P.& others 18.3.2013 Shri P.K.Kaurav, Addl. A.G., for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri Kaurav at the outset submits that before the writ Court the order Annexure P-1 dated 25.9.2012 was under challenge, by which the appellant herein was placed under suspension, because an enquiry was contemplated against the appellant. It is submitted that the appeal preferred by the appellant before the State Government under Rule 22 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 has been allowed on 14.3.2013 by the State Government and the suspension order has been revoked. It is submitted that in view of the subsequent event, this appeal has rendered infructuous. Shri Kaurav has also shown us a copy of the order dated 14.3.2013 passed by the State Government revoking the suspension. In view of aforesaid statement, it appears that this appeal has rendered infructuous and accordingly this appeal is finally disposed of, in terms of the ...
Vijay @ Monu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.15050/2012 18.3.2013 Shri Pramod Thakre, counsel for the applicant. Shri , for the respondent/State. Heard. The applicant is in custody since 6.6.2012 in connection with Crime No.1034/2011 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B r/w 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Similarly placed co-accused Sudhil Sharma and Pradeep Sharma have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 10.1.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.9996/2012 and M.Cr.C.No.9952/2012. Case of the present applicant is similar to the case of the Co.accused. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to conclude finally, 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 circumstance...
Ram Kumar Meghani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeasl)-i Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
1 W.P.No2864/2013 Ram Kumar Meghani Commissioner of Income Tax & another 18.3.2013 Shri Sanjay Mishra, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for respondents. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 1. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 17.1.2013 pased by respondent No.2 Annexure P/1.2. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 not to initiate coercive measure for recovery of tax till the decision of appeal pending before Commissioner of Income Tax appeals.3. That the respondent no.1 Commissioner of Income Tax appeal Bhopal may be directed to decide the appeal within a period of 1 month 4. Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be granted. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submits that petitioner's application Annexure P/4 dated 4.1.2013 for staying the recovery is pending before the respondent No.1, who may be directed to decide the application expeditiously. Prayer made b...
Ashok Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.2333 of 2012 Smt. Rajni Fouzdar VERSUS State of M.P. Shri Manish Datt Senior Advocate with Shri Yogesh Soni, counsel for the applicant. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Revision No.2370/2012 Pawan Chouhan VERSUS State of M.P. Shri Prakash Upadhyay and Shri Prashant Dubey, counsel for the applicant. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Criminal Revision No.154/2013 Ashok VERSUS State of M.P. Shri S. K. Gangrade, counsel for the applicant. Shri S. K. Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 18th day of March, 2013) These three revisions are connected with the common order...
Pannalal Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1682/2013 18/03/2013 Shri Deepak Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri C.K.Mishra, GA for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.125/12, registered at police station Kesli, District Sagar for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation against this applicant is that he identified the lady who impersonated herself in place of Ramwati. He is ready to cooperate in further investigation. Nothing is required to be seized from the possession of this applicant. Applicant is reputed person of the society and in the event of arrest his reputation will be tarnished therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the a...
Rajju @ Rajkumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2854/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Aseem Dixit, 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 26.12.2012 in connection with Crime No.638/2012 registered at P.S.Rahatgarh, District Sagar for the offence punishable under sections 377, 450, 506 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no medical corroboration in regard to unnatural offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant. Charge sheet has been filed. 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 raised by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation against the applicant and overall facts and circumstanc...
Satish Rajpal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
M.Cr.C. No.3237/2013 18.3.2013 Shri Siddharth Gulatee, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.K. Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 135/2012 registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Raisen for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 470, 471 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. As per prosecution itself, it is alleged against the applicant that he was the attesting witnesses in the execution of the agreement to sale. He has bonafidely put his signature. He is not the beneficiary of anything. Nothing is required to be seized from his possession. He is a reputed person of the society and in the event of arrest, his re...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »