Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Gupta Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cr.Rev. No.986/1999 Gupta S/o Dashrat Gond Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Ms. V. Bhatnagar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Pushpraj Singh, PL for the State. ORDER 30.04.2013 This revision has been preferred by the applicants under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment dated 23.6.1999 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Cr. A. No.38/1997 whereby the appeal of the applicants has been dismissed and further the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned JMFC, Seoni vide judgment dated 25.2.1997 in Criminal Case No.1087/93, wherein applicants have been convicted under Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, with default stipulation, has been affirmed.2. The facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that on 13.2.1993, forest employees namely Suraj Prasad Sanodiya (PW3) and Deputy Ranger, P.R. Sanodiya (PW1) found that som...
Hargovind Pandey Vs. Smt.Koshilaya Devi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
1 S.A.No.458/1999 Smt. Nanhi Bai & ORS.versus Smt. Koshalya Devi & ORS.30.04.2013 Shri P.N.Das learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Dinesh Agrawal learned counsel for respondent no.2. Heard on the question of admission. The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1999 passed by the District Judge Sagar in Civil Appeal No.26-A/98 whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.4.1998 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II Banda in Civil Suit No.2-A/1995 has been reversed and the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of part of KhaSr.No.436/29, new KhaSr.No.814 of village Shahgarh District Sagar, has been set aside. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the FiRs.Appellate Court has reversed the well reasoned finding recorded by the trial court in respect of ownership of the appellants which was based upon the sale deed dated 2.2.1995, Exhibit P-6, by which the appellan...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S DolphIn Builders Pvt Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR DB: Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting C.J.& Hon. M.A. Siddiqui, J M.A.I.T.No.13/2002 The Commissioner Income Tax -Vs- M/s Dolphin Builders (P) Ltd., ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Advocate with Shri Abhishek Oswal for the Respondent ORDER RESERVED ON 14/03/2013 ORDER PASSED ON /04/2013 ORDER As per : M.A. Siddiqui.J.The appellant has filed this appeal u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being aggrieved from the order of appellate Tribunal, Income Tax, Indore dated 18.1.2002 by which the appeal preferred by Department was dismissed.2. In brief the facts of the case are that that the respondents M/s Dolphin Builder (P) Ltd (hereinafter referred as assessee) constructed 24 flats in two buildings known as Amardeep Apartments. and Amarjyoti Apartments. and entered into agreement 2 with Shri BD Agarwal and M/s Goyal Builders, according to whi...
Kemli Bai Vs. General Manager
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Writ Petition No ::7909. / 2013 Kemli Bai and others versus General Manager, MPAMr.and others 30.04.2013. Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar for the petitioneRs.Shri D.N.Shukla for respondent No.1. Challenging an order-dated 10.4.2013 Annexure P/4, setting aside a temporary injunction granted by the trial court in a proceeding held under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, vide Annexure P/3 dated 6.3.2013, petitioners have filed this writ petition. Petitioners have filed the suit in question seeking declaration of their share with regard to the property in question and in the said suit the State was not made a party. Even though after evaluating the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, injunction was granted by the trial court vide Annexure P/3 only on the ground that the State Government has not been arrayed as respondent and without impleading the State, the suit would not be maintainable. The learned appellate court has vacated the inju...
Synergy Media Entertainment Limited (Smel) Vs. in the Matter of Scheme ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Company Petition No :3. Of 2013 Synergy Media Entertainment Limited (SMEL. or Amalgamating Company.) Vs. In the matter of scheme of arrangement and amalgamation between IMCL and SMEL with Company Petition No :4. Of 2013 I Media Corporation Limited (IMCL. or Petitioner Company.) Vs. In the matter of scheme of arrangement and amalgamation between IMCL and SMEL Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rahul Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel appears for the Official Liquidator. Shri R.S. Siddiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Registrar of Companies and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Western Region, Ahmadabad. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 30.4.2013 By this petition under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1...
Manoh Jharia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
[1]. Criminal Revision No.854/2006 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.854/2006 Manot Jharia and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri Pradeep Sahu, Advocate for applicant No.1. Shri S.K.P. Verma, Advocate for applicant No.2. Shri Pushpraj Singh, PL for the State. ORDER [30.4.2013].1. This revision petition has been preferred by the applicants under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment dated 8.5.2006 passed by Tenth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.595/2005 affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by JMFC, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.261/2004 vide order dated 17.11.2005 whereby the applicants have been convicted under Section 377/34 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation.2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that on 27.12.2001 at about 10:30 AM when complainant Lakhan Lal (PW-1) was standing at Tripuri Squar...
Ramnath Prasad Pal Vs. Ramchandra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Writ Petition No ::7514. / 2013 Ramnath Prasad Pal versus Ramchandra and others 30.04.2013. Shri Z.M.Shah for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an interlocutory order-dated 8.4.2013 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Pandurna, District Chhindwara rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit, which is pending before the court below. After seeking amendment and consequential amendment being made on remand ordered by the High Court, petitioner wanted framing of certain additional issues. Learned court has found that framing of additional issues are not necessary, it would only delay the proceedings and holding that the issues framed are sufficient to decide the controversy, the application has been rejected. Discretion exercised and the order passed for rejecting the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to s...
Vinod Kumar Vs. Shiv Kumar Garg
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Writ Petition No ::7638. / 2013 Vinot Kumar versus Shiv Kumar Garg and others 30.04.2013. Shri P.L.Pandya for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Against the order impugned passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class I, Satna granting injunction in a proceeding held under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(R) CPC before the District Judge, therefore, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution bypassing this remedy of appeal, is not maintainable. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal as indicated hereinabove, this petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Smt. Maya Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
Conc. 489/2012 30/4/2013: Shri C.L.Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the consideration made by the respondents and the proceedings filed considering the case of the petitioner and deciding the claim of the employees as per seniority, not no further action is required to be taken. Petitioner's case has not been considered as the petitioner has not come within the zone of seniority for regularization. From the reply filed by the respondents as contained in para 5 and 6 it is clear that claim of the petitioner was placed before the appropriate Screening Committee and based on the seniority action has been taken. Considering the same, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt. Instead in case petitioner has any grievance still subsisting he is granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. Accordingly, for the present finding no case for initiating action for contemp...
i Media Corp Limited Vs. in the Matter of Scheme of Arrangement and Am ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Company Petition No :4. Of 2013 I Media Corporation Limited (IMCL. or Petitioner Company.) versus In the matter of scheme of arrangement and amalgamation between IMCL and SMEL Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rahul Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.K.Upadhyaya, learned counsel appears for the Official Liquidator. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Registrar of Companies and the Ministry of Corporate AffaiRs.Western Region, Ahmadabad. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 30.4.2013 For the reasons stated in the order passed in the main case i.e.Company Petition No.3/2013, this petition is also allowed. Copy of the order be retained in the file. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »