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.
Smt. Nirmla Rai Vs. Madhya Pradesh East Zone Electricity
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 W.P.No.2928/2013 12/4/2013: Shri Mahesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. From the proceedings of the Electricity Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum, Jabalpur dated 23.3.2013 it is seen that after depositing Rs.50000/- the petitioner was assured about restoration of electricity connection. By filing various documents vide I.A.No.5028/2013 it is indicated by the petitioner that inspite of deposit of amount and inspite of the direction issued by the Forum on 23.3.2013 electricity connection at petitioner's premises has not been restored. If that be so, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order before the competent authority and before appropriate forum which has passed the order on 23.3.2013 competent authority or the forum concerned shall pass necessary orders and ensure restoration of electricity connection in accordance to rule is made and petitioner is granted the benefit in accordance to the order passed by the Forum on 23.3.2013. Actio...
imnawati Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1 W.P.No.5313/2013 12/4/2013: Shri Ashok Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this writ petition is made to an interlocutory order dated 11.1.2013 and 30.1.2013 by which learned Court has rejected an application filed by the petitioner for getting the finger prints in a Will examined by a finger print expert. Taking note of the totality of circumstances, it is seen that application has been rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner while recording the evidence has already got the Will exhibited and the Court cannot permit calling for an expert for collection of evidence. That apart, in the order passed by the Court on 11.1.2013 it is indicated that without giving the particulars of the handwriting expert and details, a vague application has been filed. Taking note of the fact that the application has been rejected in due exercise of powers of discretion, no case is made out for interference in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petition ...
Central Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Gughuri-1 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...
Javed Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
-(1)- Cr. Appeal No.2045/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2045/2005 Javed Khan & another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh PRESENT: Honble Shri Justice R.S. JHA, J.----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.S.Rajpoot, 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 16-09-2005 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Bhopal, in Special Case No.6/2004 whereby the appellants have been found guilty of offences punishable under Section 8C/20-B(2b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and have been sentenced to three years' R.I. each with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of the same a further sentence of six months each 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that R.K.Upad...
Nagoolal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2322/2013 10/04/2013 Shri B.R.Koshta , Advocate for the applicants. Shri A.K.Singh, GA for the respondent/State. At the outset, learned counsel for applicants prays for withdrawal of application in respect of applicant no.2 Sewaram. Prayer allowed. The application in respect of applicant Sewaram is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. Heard finally on behalf of applicant no.1 Nagoolal. 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 29/12/2012 in connection with Crime No.222/12 registered at P.S.Umreth, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 368, 372, 373, 344, 366-A, 376, 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that during trial prosecutrix herself stated in her examination-in-chief that the person who present in the Court named as Nagoolal was not the person who committed rap...
Anandilal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.6294/2013 10/4/2013: Ms.Sneh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Grievance of the petitioner is with regard to activities of respondent No.6 Patwari. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition seeking action against respondent No.6, but the fact remains that representation in this regard is pending before the Collector, Sagar. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.3 the Collector is directed to look into the complaint of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance to law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Chhaganlal Vs. Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.6308/2013 10/4/2013: Shri H. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent State on advance notice. An application filed by the petitioner seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been rejected on the ground of want of prosecution. The question with regard to rejection of an application for reference has already been considered by this Court in various cases and in one of the cases decided on 26.2.2013 in W.P.No.174/2013 - Prahlad versus The Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation Officer and others the matter has been so dealt with :- "In the order passed by the Division Bench on 27.8.2010 in the cases as relied upon by Shri Shashank Upadhyay, the following directions have been issued :- "The Court below observed that inspite of various opportunities, the process fee was not paid and the petitioner had not taken any steps for service on the respondents. "26. Form of Award:-(1) Every award under thi...
Pranav Awasthy Vs. the Central Public Information Commission
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
W.P.No.4892/2013 10/04/2013 Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Sidhiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General appears for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is a resident of Jabalpur and it is stated that he has filed certain application seeking information from the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur under the Right to Information Act. When the information was not given by the Information Officer i.e.Respondent No.3, petitioner preferred an appeal before Respondent No.2 the appellate authority but in accordance with the statutory provision as no decision is taken within the period prescribed, petitioner preferred a second appeal i.e.Annexure-P4, which is pending before Respondent No.1 namely Chief Information Commissioner. Copy of the second appeal said to have been filed is available at Page-23 and acknowledgment of the same is also brought on record, which is available at Page-29. Grievance of the petitioner is that the matter is kept pending for a per...
Rajkumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Criminal Revision No.352/2013 10.04.2013 Shri Akhilesh Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicants have challenged the order dated 22.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sidhi in ST No.257/2010 whereby the charge of offence punishable under Section 364-A of IPC was framed against the applicants. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicants took a contract to provide some gitty to the victim Yogendra Pandey. Out of the payment of Rs.1,20,000/-, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid and sum of Rs.80,000/- was remained. Thereafter the victim Yogendra Pandey was abducted. The various dacoits, who abducted the victim Yogendra Pandey have stated that they were hired by the applicants. Thereafter the applicants were arrested and a trial was proceeded. After considering the submissions made by the lea...
Ramlal Gadari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.2230/2012 Ramlal Gadari VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Mukesh Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 10th day of April, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 354 and 323 of IPC vide judgment dated 1.5.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Katni (Shri K.N.Bhardwaj) in criminal case No.1124/2010 and sentenced for 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 6 month's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- respectively. In criminal appeal No.85/2012 vide judgment dated 9.11.2012, the learned Sessions Judge, Katni dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both t...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »