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.
Govind Singh Vs. Natthu Kha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
S.A.No.2116 29. 04-2013 Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R.L.Ariha, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A.No.7185/2005 filed by the appellant for condonation of 252 days in filing the appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was a politically active person as a result of which a false criminal case was instituted against him on 5-5-2004. Thereafter externment proceedings were taken up against him which resulted in passing of an order of externment on 11-11-2004. It is submitted that even after end of the period of externment on account of political rivalry the appellant was constantly prosecuted by the local authorities and, therefore, he could not contact his counsel within time and it was only in August, 2005 that he came to knot about the fact of the impugned order being passed in September, 2004. It is submitted that immediately on coming to knot about the ...
Sunil JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Cr.R.No.514/2013 29.04.2013 Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Pushpraj Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on question of admission. Petition seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Learned counsel for the State takes notice of this admission. Record of the Courts below has already been requisitioned. Also heard on IA No.6633/2013, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. The applicant has been convicted under Sections 34(2) of Excise Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, with default stipulation. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail. He has been falsely implicated. He further submits that during trial and after dismissal of the appeal, in all, the applicant has already suffered the jail sentence of about 120 days. Revision would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail. Learned counsel f...
Devkaran Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1 W.P.No.14658/2011 29/4/2013: Shri Abdul Waheed Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging an interlocutory order dated 2.8.2011 by which stamp duty is directed to be paid on registered sale deed dated 10.6.1954, petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court on the ground that the document is not admissible in evidence has refused to take the document on record, apart from the fact that the document does not bear sufficient stamp. Nothing is brought on record on the basis of which the findings recorded by the Court below can be termed as perveRs.or illegal warranting interference in this petition. Accordingly, finding no case for interference, petition is dismissed. ( Rajendra MeNo.) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Anil Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Cr.Rev. No.1006/2010 29.04.2013 Shri D.K.Pandey, counsel for the applicants. Shri Pushpraj Singh, PL for the State. Record of the Court below has already been requisitioned. Heard on IA No.4251/2013, an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.for permission to compound the offence. The applicants have been convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months (each) and fine of Rs.1,000/- (each).with default stipulations. Injured/complainant Mahaveer Pandey present in person and submits that he settled the case with the applicants out of the Court. Applicants and complainant are living in the same village and they want to live peacefully, therefore prays for compromise the matter. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the application is allowed. Complainant Mahaveer Pandey is permitted to compromise the case with the applicants. Parties also filed an application for compromise, the same is verified and accepted. On the basis of aforesaid compromise, applicants a...
M/S Bharat Oman Refineries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1 ITA No.238/2012 M/s Bharat Oman Refineries Commissioner of Income Tax-1 LTD.29.4.2013 Shri G.N.Purohit, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Abhishek Oswal, Counsel for appellant. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for respondent. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30.7.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore in ITA No.2/Ind/2012 (Assessment Year 2008-09).by which an appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the CIT(A).Bhopal dated 3.10.2011 was affirmed. The ITAT and CIT have confirmed addition of Rs.31,39,70,137/- to the total income on account of the interest earned on FDRs made out of zero coupon convertible bonds. The appellant has suggested that the appeal involves following substantial questions of law and on these substantial questions of law, this appeal may be admitted:- (i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in basing its finding on erroneous finding of AO about nexus of funds invested in FDR, and holding that int...
Vandna Yadav Vs. Nitin
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Vandana Yadav versus Nitin Writ Petition No.7357 29. 4.2013: Shri Ashok Chakraverty and Smt. Geeta Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge Sihore. Respondent husband has initiated proceedings, for dissolution of marriage, against the petitioner on various grounds. In the pending proceeding certain documents and conversation of a mobile communication have been taken on record and challenging the order taking the documents on record this writ petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I see no reason to interfere into matter. Finding the material to be relevant for deciding the dispute between parties the learned court has exercised his discretion and has taken documents on record and in doing so, no error so grave in nature have committed, which warrants interference at this interlocutory stage in a proc...
Hansh Raj Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
W.P.No.6737/13 29/04/13 Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Against the order passed by the Collector under Section 247 of the M.P.L.R.C., petitioners have a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 242, Second Appeal and Revision under Section 50 and, therefore, the petition directly before this Court by-passing a three tier remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioners to take recouRs.to the remedy available under the M.P.L.R.C., this petition is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Vy/-...
Smt. Parwati Bai Vs. Project Director
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Writ Petition No ::9289. / 2011 Smt. Parwati Bai versus Project Director and others 29.04.2013. Shri N.K.Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri K.N.Pethia for the respondents. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order-dated 14.2.2011 Annexure P/4, passed by Commissioner, Jabalpur. A perusal of the order Annexure P/4 goes to show that the Commissioner has exercised powers conferred upon him under section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Commissioner has further indicated in the impugned order that vide Notification dated 31.12.2001, issued by the Central Government, he has been appointed as an arbitrator under the statutory provisions to discharge the duty of an arbitrator and he has exercised the power in accordance to the requirement of law following the procedure contemplated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That apart, sub-section (6) of Section 3-G contemplates that an arbitration proceeding held under section 3-G(5) shall be subject to all the provisi...
Smt. Neha Shrivastava Vs. Subhash Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
M.C.C.No.566/2013 (Smt. Neha Shrivastava versus Subhash Shrivastava) 29.04.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Verman, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard. The applicant has filed this application seeking transfer of Civil Suit No.99-A/2012 pending before the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur to Jabalpur. It is submitted that the respondent has filed a petition for divorce before the court at Narsinghpur which is pending but the applicant is staying at Jabalpur with her old widow mother and is not financially sound enough to attend the proceedings at Narsinghpur and in such circumstances the case be transferred to Jabalpur. There are adequate statutory provisions in the Hindu Marriage Act which take care of such situation and therefore, it cannot be a ground seeking transfer from Narsinghpur to Jabalpur. This is the only ground raised and argued by the applicant before this court. In the circumstances, I find no merits in the application which is accordingly dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge m...
P.Kumar Vs. Ntpc Vindhyachal Super thermal Power Project/Station Post ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
P. Kumar versus NTPC Vindhyachal Super Thermal Power Project/Station & ORS.Writ Petition No.6076 26. 4.2013: Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the election to the Vindhyachal Employees Welfare Association, respondent No.2. The Vindhyachal Employees Welfare Association is an unregistered, non-statutory body. Merely because it functions under the supervision of a public sector undertaking, this court will not have jurisdiction to interfere into the functions of private unregistered society. The petitioner is to take recouRs.of remedy available under the common law, as respondent No.2 society/association is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court . Accordingly, granting liberty to take recouRs.of remedy available under common law, this writ petition is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »