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.
Vijay Singh @ Pintu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4085/2013 10/04/2013 Shri P.S.Gaharwar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesharwani, PL for the respondent/State. Heard. Admit. Also heard on I.A.No.7399/13, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.76/13, registered at police station Amarpatan, District Satna for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that there was a transaction of money between complainant and applicant in regard to vehicle not MP19P/0602 and this applicant has already paid number of installments to the complainant. He has also sent a report to Superintendent of Police, District Satna (Annexure A-3) for fair inquiry into the matter. He is ready to co-operate in further investigation and there is no possibility of his absconding. Applicant is reputed person of the society and in the event of arr...
Durga Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1 W.P.No.6050/2013 10/4/2013: Shri D.D.Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt.Adv.for the respondent-State on advance notice. Challenging the order dated 4.3.2013 Annexure P/1 passed by the Law Department rejecting the mercy petition filed by the petitioner under Article 161 of the Constitution, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 452, 302, 323, 148 and 149 of IPC by the Appellate Court and is undergoing imprisonment. Petitioner at the relevant time completed the total sentence of 10 years and thereafter filed mercy petition under Article 161 of the Constitution. Mercy petition was forwarded by the State Government but the law Department has rejected the same under Rule 775 of the M.P.Jail Manual. It is the case of the petitioner that power under Section 161 of the Constitution can be exercised only by the Governot and State Government by usurping the power under Rule 775 of M.P.Jail...
Ramlal Kol Vs. Moti Kashyap @ Motilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Election Petition No.20/2009 Ramlal Kol, son of Ramsharan Kol, aged about 36 years, resident of village Hirwara, Tahsil Mudwara, Distt. Katni ...Petitioner Versus Moti Kashyap @ Motilal, son of Late Mewalal, resident of 1220, Durga Chowk, Phootatal, Ravindra Ward, P.O. Gurundi Bazar, Jabalpur ...Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate for petitioner. Shri G.S. Baghel, Advocate for respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing :10. 1.2013 Date of Judgment :10. 4.2013 JUDGMENT In this petition, election of the returned candidate viz. the respondent to Badwara Legislative Assembly Constituency No.91 has been called in question on the grounds mentioned in clause (a) and sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of Representation...
Shaikh Abrar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
W.P.No.4749/2013 10/04/2013 Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents/State. Petitioner, who is husband of the corpus, claims that he had married to the corpus and they are living as husband and wife. It is alleged that date of birth of the corpus is 3.11.1990 as is evident from the document produced in this regard, namely the mark-sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal Annexure-P2. Marriage of the petitioner with the corpus took place on 18.9.2012 and they were living together after the marriage was registered. It is further stated that the family member of the corpus Respondent No.8, her father was against the aforesaid marriage and, therefore, on 2.2.2013 took away the corpus forcibly from the custody of the petitioner and brought her from Seoni to Jabalpur and since then, the corpus is in illegal custody of Respondent No.8. Seeking production of the corpus fr...
M/S Raja Snitary Iron Stores Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
W.P.No.3427/2010 10-04-2013 Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. Kaurav, learned Addl. A.G.for the State/respondents. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent/authorities are not releasing the payment for the hand-tools supplied by the petitioner pursuant to the contract awarded to him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that identical and similar petitions, namely, W.P.No.1823/2010 (M/S.Bhagwati Iron Stores v. State of M.P.& others).W.P.No.1824/2010 (M/S.R.S.Tomar v. State of M.P.& otheRs.and W.P.No.2063/2010 (M/S.A to Z Suppliers v. State of M.P.& otheRs.have been disposed of by this Court by order dated 22-3-2010 and, therefore, the present petition being similar and identical be disposed of in similar terMs.The learned counsel has also pointed out that an identical order passed in W.P.No.1124/2010 (M/S.Amit Enterprises v. State of M.P.& otheRs.has been...
Rammilan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.663/1999 Ram Milan VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh & another --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ranjan Banerjee, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.1. None for the respondent No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 9th day of April, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 494 of IPC vide judgment dated 19.1.1998 passed by the learned JMFC, Laundi (Shri M.S.Mishra) in criminal case No.28/1998 and sentenced for 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In criminal appeal No.11/1998, the learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur vide judgment dated 9.4.1999 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has pre...
Shivmurat Prasad Pandey Vs. Pradeep Singhgaur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Con.C.No.1317/10 9/04/13 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. From the documents filed by the respondents, it is seen that claim of the petitioner has been settled and on 12/11/10, the amount due to the petitioner along with interest has been paid. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present, it is not appropriate for this Court to proceed in the matter, instead, it is directed that in case, petitioner is not satisfied with regard to settlement of his claim as indicated in the order dated 12/11/10, he is granted liberty to approach this Court by raising the fresh claim in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, for the present, keeping in view the compliance reported by the respondents vide order dated 12/11/10 and the acknowledgment of the petitioner available therein, this application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Sayeed Khan and ors. Vs. Mohd.Ali Khan and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
CRR No.1280/2002 Criminal Revision No.1280/2002 9.4.2013 Shri Harpreet Ruprah, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.K.Gangrade, counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Heard on admission. The applicants have preferred the present revision against the impugned order dated 17.9.2002 passed by the learned JMFC, Bhopal (Smt.Renuka Kanchan) in R.T.No.733/02, whereby the charges of offence punishable under section 420 of IPC were framed against the applicants. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the respondent No.1 has moved a complaint for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC against the applicants. The trial Court has recorded the evidence of the complainant given before the framing of charges and thereafter, charges were framed after giving due opportunity to the learned counsel for the parties to argue the matter on that point. It appears that the applicants have challenged the impugned order on two counts. Firstly,...
Smt. Arunlata Deria Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
1 MCRC No 10287/2012 9.4.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri N. Datt Adv., for the applicant/s. Shri SP Singh Chadar, P.L.For respondent no.1/State. Shri Vivek Shukla, Adv.for the respondent No.2. Heard. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that there is some administrative directions dated 16.9.2010 for which learned counsel for the petitioner wants some time to go through the same. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is directed to supply copy of the aforesaid directions to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the couRs.of the day and submit a copy for record. As prayed time is granted. IR to continue till next date of hearing. List in the week commencing 6.5.2013. (M.A.Siddiqui ) JUDGE Ag/...
Smt. Dr. Ratna Sharma Vs. Vimlesh Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
M.C.C.No.466/2012 09.04.2013 Shri B.K.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri U.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the non- applicant. This MCC is filed on the permission granted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, for filing of this MCC at Principal Bench of this Court at Jabalpur. This application is filed under Section 24 of the CPC 1908.for transfer of Hindu Marriage Case No.28/2011, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge Khachroud, District Ujjain, on the ground that the applicant being wife of the non-applicant is residing at Satna. On account of act of domestic violence, the applicant has filed an application for initiating proceedings against the non- applicant at Satna, being Case No.15/2012, pending in the Court of J.M.F.C.Satna. The non-applicant is required to appear in the said case. Yet another case has been registered against the non-applicant at Satna and in that case also the non-applicant is appearing. Simply to harass the applicant, an application under Sect...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »