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.
C.C.E. Raipur Vs. M/S Maihar Cement
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
C.E.S.R.No.16/2001 25.4.2013 Shri Anoop Nair, counsel for appellant. Shri Aditya Adhikari, counsel for respondent. This reference has been made by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Northern Division Bench for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law :- Whether the Explosives used in mines for blasting lime stone can be considered as inputs eligible for MODVAT in terms of Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 ?.. This reference was made on 2.6.2000 before coming into force of National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 under section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged in the manufacturing of cement and was extracting limestones from the mines and for that purpose it was using explosives. The respondent had claimed MODVAT under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short) on the explosives used by the respondent in mines. The aforesaid contention of the res...
Shayam Jute Supply Vs. Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstructio ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
1 W.P.No.7534/2013 25/4/2013: Shri Amalpushp Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner who is said to be a unsecured creditor of the respondent No.2 Company and who has contain interest in the said company as the company owes to the petitioner a sum of Rs.6,09,666/- along with interest, has filed this writ petition and the prayer made is to restrain respondent No.1 Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction from proceeding in the matter and for declaring the industry as a sick industry. It is stated that proceeding being held for declaring the industry as sick be quashed as respondent No.2 Company is no more a sick industry but its financial position is improved and not it cannot be declared as sick industry. The question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court in the matter is involved. Relief claimed for by the petitioner in this writ petition is that proceedings being held against respondent No.2 Company before the respondent No.1 Board at New Delhi be quashed. ...
Vimlesh Upadhayay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Writ Petition No ::7018. / 2013 Vimlesh Upadhyay and others versus State of MP and others 25.04.2013. Shri Amit Seth for the petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioners are resident of Tehsil Patan, District Jabalpur and are entitled to seek the benefit of procuring Kharif produce from a particular center. According to the petitioneRs.initially they have been allocated a Center situated at Vrahata Sewa Sahkari Sanstha, Sarondh and when they approached the said Center, they were directed to go to a Center at Udna Medi, which is far away. Seeking grant of benefit from the Center at Sarondh, petitioners have submitted a representation to the Tehsildar, respondent No.5, and when no action is taken they have approached this Court. Taking note of the grievance of the petitioneRs.it is directed that if the petitioners file a detailed representation alongwith relevant documents before respondent No.3 Collector (Food).Jabalpur, the said a...
Devidas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
CRR No.576/2013 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Honble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava CRIMINAL REVISION No.576/2013 Applicant: Devidas s/o Baburao, R/o village Ugariya, District Khandwa, East Nimar (M.P.) Versus Respondent : State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Moghat Road, Khandwa, District East Nimar (M.P.) --------------------------------------------- Shri U.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Pushpraj Singh, Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. --------------------------------------------- ORDER (Delivered on this 25th day of April, 2013) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.3.2013 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, District East Nimar in Criminal Appeal No.208/2012 thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandwa in Criminal Case No.2509/2009 convicting the applicant CRR No.576/2013 2 under Section 411 IPC a...
Ashok Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Writ Petition No :18563. / 2006 (S) Ashok Kumar Jain versus State of MP and another 25.04.2013. Matter has been placed before us in view of a communication received from the Enquiry Officer on 26.3.2013, requesting for extension of time to conclude the departmental inquiry. While disposing of the writ petition on 27.11.2012, respondents were directed to conclude the inquiry within a period of four months. It is not pointed out by the Enquiry Officer that due to various reasons, he was unable to conclude the inquiry and prays for a months time to conclude the inquiry. Keeping in view the aforesaid, one months time is granted to conclude the inquiry as already ordered by this Court on 27.11.2012. The period of one month shall be reckoned from the date the certified copy is placed before the Enquiry Officer. ( RAJENDRA MENo.) ( ALOK ARADHE ) JUDGE JUDGE Aks/-...
Revendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
1 W.P.No.6486/2013 24/4/2013: Shri Ravendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari on instructions points out that the question of finalization of tender in question is pending before the State Government and a decision has not been taken, till then the toll bridge in question is being departmentally run under the supervision of Executive Engineer respondent No.2. He prays for two weeks time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit. Prayer allowed. Till the next date of hearing no contract or third party interest in the matter of grant of toll bridge shall be created. It would be for the department concerned to run the toll bridge. c.c.as per rules. ( Rajendra MeNo.) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Arvind Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
W.P.No.7278/2013 24/04/2013 Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. An objection filed by the petitioner with regard to grant of temporary permit to Respondent Nos.3 & 4 is pending before Respondent No.2, as is evident from the documents brought on record. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merit, Respondent No.2 the Regional Transport Officer is directed to take note of the objection raised by the petitioner and then only proceed to grant permit to Respondent Nos.3 & 4. Before granting any further permit to Respondent Nos.3 & 4, decision on the objection shall be taken and then only permit granted. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Ganga (D) Thr Lrs Nihori @ Phulmati Vs. Deni Madhav (D) Thr Lrs Ram Ma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
R.P.No.322/2013 (Ganga and others versus Beni Madhav and otheRs.24.04.2013 Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Vivek Baderiya, learned counsel for the respondents. The applicants have filed this review petition being aggrieved by the order passed by this court on 25.02.2013 in S.A.No.170/2013. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the finding recorded by the courts below regarding khaSr.Nos.561 and 562/1 is not in accordance with the documents on record. The aforesaid submission cannot be a ground to review the order passed by this court on 25.02.2013 in S.A.No.170/13. As the findings recorded by this court cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record or an apparent factual error which requires correction. It is a settled law that rehearing of the appeal in review is not permissible. In the circumstances, I find no merits in the application for review which is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Sterlite Technologies Ltd Vs. Dhar Industries Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADEESH JABALPUR (Review Petition No. 34/2013) Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Vs. Dhar Industries PRESENT : HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV Counsel for Petitioner Shri Brian D'Silva, Senior Advocate with Shri V. Bhide, Advocate Counsel for respondents Shri A.P. Shroti, Advocate O R D E R (24/04/2013) PER SANJAY YADAV, J Review of order dated 12.4.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 8653/2011 is being sought vide this Review Petition.1. Writ Petition No. 8653/2011 filed by the petitioner was directed against the order dated 31.7.2010 passed by the Council on an application under Section 17 of the Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 Act (referred to as Act of 2006) preferred by the respondent for claim of Rs.36,32,508/ along with Rs.26,15,605/ towards interest.2. The claim by respondent was for recovery in lieu of the penalty allegedly imposed by the Commerc...
Priyadarshini Housing Co-operative Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
W.P.No.3981/2004 24/04/2013 Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Pramod Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned P.L.For the State. Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for one of the intervener and Shri Kapil Sharma, learned counsel also for certain proposed intervener. In pursuance to certain orders passed by this Court on 14.12.2004 and 22.3.2013, the documents available with the petitioner's counsel have been produced. The petitioner's counsel is directed to hand over the said record to the Principle Registrar (Judicial) along with the list of the documents. The Principle Registrar after going through the record, shall accept the same and give receipt of the same to the counsel. If the interveners want to inspect the records, they shall move an application for inspection of the documents and on such applications being received, the Principle Registrar shall appoint an officer, who shall permit inspection of the documents by the parties...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »