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.
Sujeet Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
1 Criminal Revision No.165/2013 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.165/2013 Sujeet Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ................................................................................................. Shri Sharad Verma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 9th day of April, 2013) The applicant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 and 323 of I.P.C vide judgment dated 12.12.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nainpur (Shri Sanjay Raj Thakur) in Criminal Case No.228/2009 and sentenced for one years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and six months simple imprisonment respectively. In Criminal Appeal No.05/2010 the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla vide ...
Surendra Kumar Bilganyia Vs. Shri Arun Kochar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Con.C.No.1592/12 9/04/13 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.On 6/01/10 W.P.No.5323/04 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to grant benefit to the petitioners in accordance with the order passed on 5/10/09 in W.P.No.16322/05 (s).take action and communicate the decision. From the reply filed by the respondents, it is seen that the claim has been considered and vide order Annexure R-1 dated 7/09/10, the same has been rejected for various reasons as are indicated in the order. Once, the claim has been considered and rejected, it is not appropriate for this Court to initiate action for contempt. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the manner in which the claim is rejected, it gives a fresh cause to the petitioners to agitate the matter afresh but not a case for initiating action for contempt. Accordingly, finding no case made out for initiating action for contempt, the application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to chal...
Smt.Rajni Vs. Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.17909/2012 Smt. Rajini....Petitioner Versus Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, and another.Respondents For the petitioner : Shri P.N.Dubey, Advocate. For the respondents: Shri Mahendra Pateriya, Advocate. ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH ****** ORDER (9.4.2013) The following order of the Court was delivered by : Ajit Singh, J. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of respondent no.1 Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, rejecting her thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.2. The petitioner, as a student of respondent no.1, submitted her thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Her subject title was Experimental Studies On Preventive Effect On Corcinogenicity Mutagenecity of Triphala Extract.Ordinance 14 of respondent no.1 provides the procedure for grant of decree of Doctor of Philosophy. The relevant extract of Clause 17 reads as under:17. (a) In case both the examiners rej...
M/S Krishna Crushing Plant Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :20413. OF 201.M/s Krishna Crushing Plant - V/s - State of M.P. & Ors. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, with Shri M.K.Rajak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. ORDER (09/04/2013) Seeking extension of the mining lease and permission to carry out mining operation for a period, when the petitioner was prevented from carrying out mining operation due to certain lapses on the part of the State authorities, petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Petitioner claims to be a propriety firm owned by Smt. Krishna Wadhvani and it is stated that the present writ petition has been filed by her attorney holder one Shri Avinash Kumar Wadhvani. It is said that the firm applied for grant of quarry lease for extraction of stone on an area measuring 4...
Shahid Khan Vs. Shri Manindra Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Conc No ::1419. / 2012 Shahid Khan versus Shri Manindra Singh 09.04.2013. Shri Amit Mishra for the applicant. Interalia contending that an order passed by this Court on 5.7.2012, in Writ Petition No.8633/2012, has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. In the original writ petition, the order passed was to the Tehsildar, Majholi to decide the matter pending before him preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, it was also observed that if any interim order or direction has been made by the Tehsildar, this Court hopes and trust that private respondent No.5 would obey the same. The nature of the order passed is only an observation with regard to respondent No.5 obeying any interim order passed by the Tehsildar. If any dis-obedience of the order of Tehsildar is undertaken by respondent No.5, applicant should approach the Tehsildar, who can always take steps for getting his...
Kirti R Trivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
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.291/2010 Kirti R. Trivedi VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Atulanand Awasthy, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.1. Shri P.C.Paliwal, counsel for the respondent No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 9th day of April, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 3.11.2009 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge to 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T.No.231/2009, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC were framed against the applicant.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the complainant Sumit Kumar Kabra has sent a complaint to the S.P., Chhindwara on 17.5.2006 that the ...
Awdhesh Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.3558/13 09.04.2013. Shri Prakash Gupta, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Petitioner no.1/husband is also present in person. Shri Satya Pal Singh Chadar, Panel Lawyer for State/ respondent no.1. Respondent no.2/complainant is also present in person. Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel has identified the parties. Let presence of the parties present be marked. Heard on IA No.8225/13, an application filed under Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C.together with affidavit for recording compromise. Respondent no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.1 and on the report of respondent no.2 PS-Garhi, District-Balaghat has registered a case under Sections 498-A, 323, 506-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide Crime No.10/13 and challan has been filed and Misc.Criminal Case 2 No.212/13 is pending consideration before JMFC, Baihar, District-Balaghat for the aforesaid offences. I have enquired from respondent no.2/complainant and petitioner no.1/husband. They submit that they are residing t...
Lokesh Chopra Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
W.P.No.4435/2013 (Lokesh Chopra and another versus Central Bank of India) 09.04.2013 Ms.Sweta Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sunil Kherdikar, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad whereby the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur has been modified and the written submissions of the petitioners have been directed to be accepted on their deposit a sum of Rs.two lacs within sixty days. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent/Bank has initiated the proceedings before the D.R.T., Jabalpur against the petitioners by filing O.A.No.349/11. As the petitioners did not file the written submissions within the time given by the tribunal, the right to do so was closed on 18.07.2012. The petitioners thereafter moved the tribunal for accepting the written subm...
Badri Prasad Vs. the 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.1037/1999 Badri Prasad Gupta VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P. C. Paliwal, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. ORDER (Passed on the 4th day of April, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7(1) read with 16(1)(a)(i) and 7(3) read with Rule 50(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the P.F. Act.) vide judgment dated 19.9.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in Criminal Case No.669 of 1993 and sentenced with six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- for each count. Criminal Appeal No.148/1997 was dismissed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol vide the judgment dated 25.6.1999...
Smt. Muni Laxmi Deewan Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Con.C.No.1571/12 9/04/13 Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the order passed by the respondents as contained in Annexure R-1 dated 7/01/13 rejecting the claim of the petitioner after due consideration, not no action for contempt can be initiated. However, if the petitioner feels that his claim has been improperly considered and rejected, it gives a fresh cause to the petitioner to challenge the order Annexure R-1 dated 7/01/13 afresh but not a case for initiating action for contempt. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order Annexure R-1 dated 7/01/13 in accordance with law, this application stands dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »