Skip to content

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.

Mar 26 2013

Vinod Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-26-2013

M.Cr.C.No.3656/2013 26.3.2013 Shri Vikash Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Puneet Shroti, PL , for the respondent-State. Heard. Admit. Call for the case diary. Also heard the learned counsel for the parties on IANo.6745/2013 for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.229/13 registered at Police Station Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494/34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him. He is ready to Co.operate in the investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has tried his level best to compromise the matter before Parivar ParamaRs.Kendra. He filed the documents in support of the aforesaid contention. It is a matrimonial case wherein in the event of arrest of the applicant, the possibility of compromise between them...


Mar 26 2013

Chairman, M.P.S.E.B. Vs. Smt.Birran Bai

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-26-2013

F.A. No.349/2006 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.349/2006 1. Chairman, M.P.E.B. Rampur, Jabalpur.2. Junior Engineer, MPEB Distribution Centre, Dongermali, Waraseoni, Dist. Balaghat (M.P.) 3. Executive Engineer, M.P.E.B. Waraseoni, Dist. Balaghat (M.P.) (M.P.E.B. not known as M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd.) ...Appellants/Defendants -Versus- 1. Smt. Birran Bai w/o Rajaram Binzgawar 2. Ku. Rameshwari d/o Rajaram 3. Ku. Meena Bai d/o Rajaram 4. Mukesh Kumar s/o Rajaram 5. Na. Ba. Chhabilal s/o Rajaram Non-appellants No.2 to 5 through guardian Smt. Birran Bai w/o Rajaram. R/o village Mediki, Tahsil Waraseoni, Dist. Balaghat (M.P.) ... Respondents/plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri M.L. Patel, Advocate for the appellants. Shri A.M. Lal, Advocate for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT {26032013...


Mar 26 2013

Gorakhnath Machhua Samooh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-26-2013

Writ Petition No :3698. / 2013 Gorakhnath Machhua Samooh versus State of MP and others 26.03.2013. Shri A.S.Raizada for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Government Advocate, for the respondent/State. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the learned court below, where Civil Suit bearing No.63- A/2011 is pending, is directed to decide the suit after hearing all concerned in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules today. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...


Mar 26 2013

Awdesh Kushwaha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-26-2013

Cr.R.No.497/2013 25.3.2013 Shri A.D.Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 8.3.3012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panna in ST No.76/2012 whereby the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C for recalling Dr. (Smt.) Smriti Gupta was dismissed. The facts of the case relating to the present revision is that the applicant is facing the trial for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C.The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. (Smt.) Smriti Gupta and the prosecutrix was referred for X- Ray examination. The X-Ray report was not filed along with the charge sheet. It was called by the trial Court after examination of Dr.(Smt.) Smriti Gupta on 6.10.2012 and therefore, the applicant has moved an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall Dr. (Smt.) Smriti Gupta. After considering ...


Mar 26 2013

Executive Engineer,mpeb.and ors Vs. Ku.Vandana Yadav and ors

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-26-2013

F.A. No.406/03 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava F.A. No.406/2003 APPELLANTS 1 Executive Engineer, Madhya Defendants Pradesh Electricity Board, Seoni, Tah. & Dist. Seoni 2. Asst. Engineer (Distribution) M.P. Electricity Board, Tah. & Dist. Seoni -Versus- RESPONDENT 1 Ku. Vandana Yadav d/o Shankerlal Plaintiffs. R/o Kali Chowk, Tah. & Dist. Seoni 2. S.C. Kulhade, r/o Barghat Road, Near Old Distillery, Tah. & Dist. Seoni ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri M.L. Patel, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT {26032013} Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2003 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Seoni in Civil Suit No.2-A/2002 whereby the suit of plaintiff for compensation to the tune of Rs.29,800/- has been dec...


Mar 26 2013

Veerendra Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-26-2013

W.P.NO.4634/2013 26-03-2013 Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. Matter pertains to recovery of royalty for the mineral consumed by the petitioner in execution of certain contract. The question of insisting upon the payment of royalty and the question of deducting royalty from the bills on similar contract has already been considered and decided by this court in various judgments . The question of demanding royalty from a contractor with regard to mineral consumed in execution of the contract has been considered in the case of W.P.No.1361/09 (M/s Chandrama Construction Company versus M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipran Sangh & others).W.P.No.2535/2003 (M/s Ravi Construction Company Vs.State of M.P.and otheRs.and W.P.No.5266/2006 (M/s K.P.Singh Bhadoria versus M.P.Rural Road Development Authority Bhopal).Recently also a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.16091/2010 (M/s Vinot Kumar Jain versus M.P.Rural Road Development Auth...


Mar 26 2013

Ramlakhan Vs. Mukesh Kumar Shah

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-26-2013

1 M. Cr.C.No.8174/2011. 26.3.2013 . Shri A.P.Shah, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned PL for the respondent No.2. Heard on the question of admission. The applicants/ accused have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the impugned order dated 14.6.2011 passed by JMFC, Singrauli in Criminal Case No.453/2008, dismissing the application of the applicants filed for quashment of the impugned criminal case. After taking me through the record along with the impugned order the applicants' counsel submits that there was no circumstance before the JMFC to send the private complaint filed by the respondent No.1 to the police with the direction to register the offence and send the investigation report to the Court. In continuation he said that the impugned investigation report was given by the police contrary to the settled proposition. He further said that after receiving such report fro...


Mar 26 2013

M/S Prakash Singh Patel Vs. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-26-2013

W.P.NO.4777/2013 26-03-2013 Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. Matter pertains to recovery of royality for the mineral consumed by the petitioner in execution of certain contract. The question of insisting upon the payment of royalty and the question of deducting royalty from the bills on similar contract has already been considered and decided by this court in various judgments . The question of demanding royalty from a contractor with regard to mineral consumed in execution of the contract has been considered in the case of W.P.No.1361/09 (M/s Chandrama Construction Company versus M.P.Rajya Krishi Vipran Sangh & others).W.P.No.2535/2003 (M/s Ravi Construction Company Vs.State of M.P.and otheRs.and W.P.No.5266/2006 (M/s K.P.Singh Bhadoria versus M.P.Rural Road Development Authority Bhopal).Recently also a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.16091/2010 (M/s Vinot Kumar Jain versus M.P.Rural Road Development Aut...


Mar 26 2013

Joy Senior Secondary School Vs. Union of India

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-26-2013

Writ Petition No. 5452 Of 2013 26.3.2013 Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. Beg, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on advance notice. Petitioner, a minority educational institution vide this petition calls in question the applicability and constitutional validity of Sections, 3, 4, 5, 12 (1) (c), 12 (2), 13 (1), 13 (2) (b), 14, 15, 16 and 18 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and seeks declaration that the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are not applicable to the Institution. At the outset it is being stated at Bar that the controversy as is raised in this case has been answered and settled at rest by decision rendered by Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India and another [(2012) ...


Mar 26 2013

Ganesh Prasad Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Mar-26-2013

W.P.No.6426/2007 26.03.2013 Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Tapikar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1. Shri Ishant Soni, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None for the respondent No.3. Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Heard on I.A.No.4255/2013, an application for permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to join in the services at State of Chhattisgarh as per his allocation. Since the application is not opposed, the same is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to join in the State of Chhattisgarh as per his allocation. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge b...


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial