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.
M/S Fortune Builders Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
WP No.6828 o17. 4.2013. Shri Siddharth Gupta for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav for respondent No.1. Shri Anshul Mishra appears for Shri Vijay Pandey and accepts notice for respondent No.3. Respondents No.2 prays a short time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Be listed for hearing along with W.P.No.1518/2013 on 8.5.2013. Till next date of hearing, if the petitioner deposits demand as raised vide Anneuxre-P/3 dt.13.3.13, the respondents shall issue building permission, if otherwise the petitioner is entitled for the same. However, deposit of the aforesaid amount shall be subject to final decision of this petition. C.c.as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Acting Chief Justice Judge Khan*...
Onkar Prasad @ Dabbal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
Criminal Revision No.635/2013 17.04.2013 Shri R.K.Shukla, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard. The present revision is hereby disposed off with a direction that the learned 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur shall provide one more opportunity to the applicant to produce his defence witnesses Ramesh Darji, Baliram Lodhi, Lakhan Master and Hiralal, if he submits the process fee and diet money for these witnesses and also he shall execute the notice by Humdast to these witnesses. A copy of this order be sent to the learned 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur relating to ST No.484/2011. Certified copy as per rules. (N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari...
Ram Ashary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
---1--- W.P.No.3479/2013 17.4.2013 Shri D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. Kaurav, learned counsel for the State/Respondents No.1 to 4. Considering the short controveRs.involved in this case, prayer made in the petition, we propose it to dispose of this matter with the consent of the parties finally. The petitioner has sought following relief :- 1. To issue a direction to the Respondents No.1 to 4 for giving possession of the lands Kh. Nos.634, Area 669 Hectare, Kh. No.640, Area 502 Hactare, Kh.No.644, Area 125 Hactare and Kh. No.646 Area 408 Hactare situated in village Kanchanpur, Tehsil Maihar District Satna (M.P.) to the Respondent No.5 from Respondent No.6 for Aam Nistar of Public and to restrain the Respondent No.6 for cultivating the above said lands in dispute.2. To issue a direction to the Respondents No.1 to 4 to declare the lands Kh. Nos.634, Area 669 Hectare, Kh. No.640, Area 502 Hactare, Kh.No.644, Area 125 Hactare and Kh. No.646 Area 408 Hactare situa...
Ram Pratap Singh Pal Vs. Babulal Hammad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
1 Cr.R. No.1052 of 2011 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1052/2011 Ram Pratap Singh Pal. -Vs- Babulal Hammad. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri O.P.Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Anuj Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 17th day of April, 2013) The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.6.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge-II, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.288/2011 whereby the revision application filed by the respondent was accepted and the order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the learned JMFC Bhopal in Criminal Case No.14565/2007 was set aside.2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/applicant has moved a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute the respondent for commission of offence punis...
Surendra Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
Criminal Revision No.2362/2012 17.04.2013 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. The learned counsel for the State submits that the case diary is not available. It is the fourth time when the case diary is not available. It appears that the Investigation Officer does not want to produce the case diary before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed the copy of charge sheet and various documents by which it is clear that except two MLC reports, no X-ray report, bed head ticket or any opinion of the concerned medical officer is submitted with the charge sheet. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicant has challenged the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in ST No.6/2012 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 307...
Ku. Sashikala Khatri Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :5018. OF 201.Ku. Sashikala Khatri & Anr. - V/s - Union of India & Ors. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Hon'ble Shri Justice M.A.Siddiqui ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 on advance notice. ORDER (17/04/2013) As per Rajendra Menon, J :- Challenging an interlocutory order Annexure-P1 dated 15.3.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting a prayer for interim relief made by the petitioners, this writ petition has been filed.2. Petitioners claim recruitment by promotion in accordance with the All India Service Rules and it is their case that consideration for appointment/ promotion has to be made in a quota reserved for State Civil Service Officers. It is alleged that four vacancies in the Non- SCS Category is lying vacant and as these...
Dilip Kushwaha @ Kuntu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.13169/2009 M.Cr.C.No.13169/2009 16.04.2013 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate with Shri Lalit Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Present petition has been preferred seeking quashment of FIR dated 26/04/2009 registered at Crime No.12/2009 at Police Station AJJAK, District Sidhi under section 376 IPC read with section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. According to prosecution on 26/04/2009 prosecutrix, aged about 15 yeaRs.lodged a report at police station AJJAK, District Sidhi that since October, 2008 till date, petitioner is indulged in sexual relations under promise of marriage with her, has resulted in pregnancy of 7 months. When fact of such an advanced pregnancy was told to the petitioner, not only he refused to marry the prosecutrix but also misbehaved and abused herself and family membeRs.During the couRs.of investigation prosecutrix vide Exhibit A/4 informed the p...
VipIn @ Golu @ Ravan Sakle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3599/2013 16/04/2013 Shri Sharad Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vivek Lakhera, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 25/02/13 in connection with Crime No.220/12 registered at P.S.GRP Itarsi, District Hoshangabad for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The offence is triable by Magistrate. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to be disposed of finally therefore, he prays for bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case alongwith the nature of allegation made against this applicant, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release him on bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merit...
Mukesh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.346/2013 Mukesh Yadav VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manot Kumar Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 16th day of April, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC vide judgment dated 6.10.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol (Shri Pramod Kumar) in criminal case No.295/2009 and sentenced for 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In criminal appeal No.116/2012 vide judgment dated 21.2.2013, the learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the pre...
Chandra Kant Singh @ Lala Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3534/2013 16.04.2013 Shri Anil Dwivedi, counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. The applicants Chandra Kant Singh @ Lala, Bhagwan Deen Gond, Smt. Gulbasiya Bai and Smt. Malti Singh are present in person. They are duly identified by their counsel. The applicant No.4 is wife of the applicant No.1, who had lodged an FIR against the remaining applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. She has submitted that not she is residing with the applicant No.1 and therefore, trial pending before the trial Court may be quashed. Facts of the case are that a trial is pending before the J.M.F.C.Jaisingh Nagar at criminal case no.666/09. The trial was initiated by the applicant No.4 and charges under Sections 325/34 and 498-A of IPC were framed against the remaining applicants. On 5.12.2012, the applicant No.4 has submitted an application for compromise and therefore, the applicants No.1 to 3 were acquitted from the charges o...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »