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.
Tukaram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4092/2013 15.4.2013 Shri C.L.Sethi, counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA, for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 6.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.1196/24 registered at Police Station Van Vibhag Gudi District Khandwa for offence punishable under Section 26(1) of Bhartiya Van Adhiniyam, 1927, Section 3, 2 (ka) of Lok Sampatti Nuksani Adhiniyam and Section 15, 16, 17 of Vanya Prani Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 1972. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. All offences levelled against the applicant are triable by Magistrate. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, 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 circumstances of the ca...
Chandra Mohan Dubey @ Chunnu Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Cr.R.No.365/2013 12.4.2013 Shri Vivek Shukla, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the lerned Additional Sessions Judge to FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in ST No.347/2011 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149, 324 read with section 149, 323 read with Section 149 and 294 of I.P.C were framed against the applicants. The prosecution's case in short is that the complainant had lodged on FIR on 24.2.2011 against three accused persons in which name of the applicants was not mentioned. Thereafter, their names were added in the statements of the various witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the lear...
Bharat Singh @ Bablu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
-(1)- Cr. Appeal No.2482/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2482/2005 Bharat Singh alias Bablu & another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh PRESENT: Honble Shri Justice R.S. JHA, J.----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri B.J.Chourasia, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (12-04-2013) The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11-11-2005 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chhatarpur, in S.T. No.57/2005 whereby the appellants have been found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to seven years' R.I. each with fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of the same a further R.I. of six months each for offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. And to tw...
Kapoor Chand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.308/2013 Kapoor Chand and two others Vs. State of M.P. ................................................................................................. Shri Rahul Tripathi, counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 12th day of April, 2013) The applicants are convicted for offences punishable under Section 325 read with section 34 of I.P.C and Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C vide judgment dated 4.10.2012 in Criminal Case No.2188/2006 and sentenced with one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and three month's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- respectively. In Criminal Appeal No.245/2012 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, District Balaghat vide judgment dated ...
Central Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 W.P.No.17060/2012 12/4/2013: Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 to 5. Challenge in this writ petition is made to provisional order of assessment passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the final order of assessment thereafter passed and the order passed by the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Jabalpur, rejecting the grievance of the petitioner mainly on the ground that petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal before competent statutory authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act and therefore, petitioner should approach the said statutory authority. Various reliefs are claimed by the petitioner and after hearing Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered view that for all the relief claimed by the petitioner except the following three relief :- "(d) Command and direct the r...
Naresh Singh Thakur Vs. Municipal Corporation Bhopal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Writ Petition No ::6617. / 2013 Naresh Singh Thakur versus Municipal Corporation and others 12.04.2013. Shri S.K.Sharma for the petitioner. Challenging the order passed by the learned 14th Additional District Judge, Bhopal dis-allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead him as a party, this writ petition has been filed. The learned Court has held that petitioners wife is one of the plaintiffs, she has filed documents to show that she is owner of the property, but petitioner has not filed any document to show co-ownership with his wife. Documents filed by the petitioner only indicate that he is owner of the adjacent property. Finding no material to show that petitioner is owner of the property, it has been held by the Court that petitioner is not a necessary party and the application is rejected. Rejection of the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for the reasons as indicated hereinabove does not call for any inter...
Manish Nayak Vs. Pyare Singh Thakur[Dangi]
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
M.A No.634 o12. 04.13 Shri J.K.Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri K.K.Pandey, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Devesh Khatri, counsel for respondents No.2 to 4. Shri Santosh Yadav, PL for respondent No.11. The present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.10 against the impugned order dated 14.11.11, whereby the application of the respondent No.1 filed under order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC, has been allowed. It is also apparent from the record that respondents No.5 to 10 are the Co.defendants with the appellant in the trial court and any of them has not preferred any appeal against the impugned order,hence presence of such respondents for adjudication of this appeal is not required. The same could be heard and adjudicated on admission as well as merits only in presence of the appellant and respondent No.1, the show-cause notice against admission is hereby dispensed with against such respondents No.5 to 10. IA No.3476/12 is disposed of accordingly. Appell...
Central Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Gughuri-2, Teh. Kundum Jabalpur Vs. the S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 W.P.No.17162/2012, W.P.17144/2012, W.P.No.17149/2012, & W.P.No.17152/2012 12/4/2013: Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 to 5. Challenge in all these writ petitions is made to provisional orders of assessment passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the final orders of assessment thereafter passed and the order passed by the Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Jabalpur, rejecting the grievance of the petitioners mainly on the ground that petitioners have remedy of filing an appeal before competent statutory authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act and therefore, petitioners should approach the said statutory authority. Various reliefs are claimed by the petitioners and after hearing Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered view that for all the relief claimed by the petitio...
Prakash JaIn Vs. the Commissioner of Food Safety
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 W.P.No.4076/2013 12/4/2013: Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents- State points out that in this case with regard to release of vehicle in question orders have already been passed by this Court on 1.4.2013. Therefore, vehicle has to be released in pursuance to this Court's order. As far as release of food item is concerned it is pointed out by Shri Bisen that report of the Public Analyst has been received and report is not placed before the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class. Petitioner should approach the said authority for releasing of food item. Keeping in view the aforesaid submission made by Shri S.S.Bisen, it is directed that the competent authority shall release the vehicle to the petitioner if not already done within a period of 3 days from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. With regard to challenge to the prosecution or release of the food item, petitioner is granted liberty to a...
Bihari Das Murchala Vs. Vivek Porwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 Conc. No.1455/2011 Bihari Das Murchale Vivek Porwal, Collector, Balaghat 12.4.2013 Ms.Varsha Kothari, Counsel for petitioner. Shri R.P.Mishra, Counsel for respondent. This contempt case is filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 18.4.2011 in W.P.No.17809/2010 by which following directions were issued:- It is alleged that the lands are recorded as a Nazul land in the revenue records, yet transfer is being made from one private person to another private person without obtaining the No Objection Certificate from the concerned authority. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate states that the complaint made by the petitioner would be looked into and after necessary enquiry, an appropriate decision will be taken expeditiously. In view of the stand taken, we are of the considered view that no purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending and it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at this stage, with the direction that in the event the petitioner mak...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »