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.
Hement Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.2706/13. 08.04.2013. Shri Ahadulla Usmani, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S. Chile, GA for State. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.has been filed in order to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to direct the trial Court in ST No.103/13, pending before 15th ASJ.Jabalpur to call for the documents for which application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.vide dated 5.2.13 has been kept pending by the learned trial Court as pre-mature up to the date of framing of the charge. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as on 6.3.13 charges have been framed by learned trial Court, therefore, learned trial Court may be directed to call for the documents which are in the form of report dated 24.5.12 of complainant to DIG, consequential statement taken in enquiry on 6.6.12 of complainant. The prayer made by the petitioners counsel seems to be reasonable, therefore, it is directed that the documents which are ...
Narsingh Suryavanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3805/2013 08/04/2013 Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Apprehending his arrest in Crime No.405/2012 registered by Police Station-Barghat District-Seoni for having committed offences under Section 409/34 IPC, applicant has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegation against the applicant is with regard to embezzlement of a sum of ` 28,36 Lacs. Applicant has brought to the notice of this Court various orders passed in the proceedings under Section 438, where anticipatory bail has been granted in deposit of some amount. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail on his paying a sum of ` 8 Lacs (Rupees Eight Lacs Only) with the department and furnishing bail bond of ` 5 Lacs (Rupees Five Lacs Only) with two solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to complying with the mandatory provisions as contempl...
M/S Girdhar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shaifali Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Writ Petition No ::5012. / 2013 M/s Girdhar Infrastructure PVT.Ltd versus Smt. Shaifali Gupta & others 08.04.2013. Shri Manot Jain for the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is pending consideration before the 16th Civil Judge Class I, Bhopal since May 2012 and till date the same has not been decided. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the learned Court below, before whom the application for temporary injunction is pending, is directed to consider and decide the application in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Mahila Bahu Uddeshiya Shahkari Samiti Mariyadit Bardwaha Vs. the State ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1 W.P.No.5701/2013 8/4/2013: Shri Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. As the representation of the petitioner with regard to the running of Fair Price Shop Annexure P/6 is pending before the Collector, Chhatarpur, respondent No.1, for the present, without entering into the controveRs.and without expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioner, respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of 45 days 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...
Guru Prasad Dwivedi Vs. N.S.Bhatnagar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1...CON.C.381 o08. 04.2013 Petitioner present in person. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Counsel for the contemner. It is submitted by Shri Kashyap, that today he has filed report of present Collector, Umaria Shri S.K.Upadhyaya, after supplying a copy of it to the petitioner. Petitioner who is present in the Court submits that the report of the Collector is not correct and still there are certain encroachment in the premises. At this stage, it is submitted by the petitioner that order dated 12.2.2013 has not been complied with. In reply to it, it is submitted by the respondent that against the aforesaid persons, departmental proceedings were initiated and as per para 4 of the reply dated 31.10.2012 they were punished. In reply to the same, petitioner submitted that they were not adequately punished and looking to the misconduct, they deserve some severe punishment. In this regard, suffice it to say, that the petitioner may take recouRs.of law but in the contempt jurisdiction, we cannot examine the c...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramdas Khateek
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
CRR No.1545/2011 Criminal Revision No.1545/2011 8.4.2013 Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/applicant. Shri Pradeep Naveriya, counsel for the respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The State has challenged the impugned order dated 23.6.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna, in S.T.No.34/2011, whereby the respondent was discharged from all the charges. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the respondent was found transporting some minerals on a forged permit and therefore, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Pawai, Districrt Panna. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under sections 379 and 467 of IPC. Case was committed to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged the respondents from all the charges. By perusal of the impugned order and co...
Smt. Savita Vishwakarma Vs. Ram Khelawan Vishwakarma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Criminal Revision No.369/2013 08.04.2013 Shri K.K.Gautam, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on admission. The applicant/complainant has preferred this revision against the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pawai in Criminal Appeal No.61/2012 whereby the judgment dated 25.1.2012 passed by the learned JMFC Pawai in Criminal Case No.330/2007 was confirmed in which the respondents No.1 to 3 were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The prosecution's case, in short, is that the complainant had lodged a written FIR Ex.P-1 on 10.8.2006 to the Superintendent of Police, Rewa that her marriage took place with one Rajnish Vishwakarma on 16.5.2005. Thereafter the respondents No.1 to 3 were harassing her for demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-. They demanded for utensils, refrigerator, gas stove and so many things, though her husband w...
Kusum Panariya Vs. District Telecom Engineer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Writ Petition No ::12362. / 2012 Kusum Panariya versus District TeleCo.Engineer 08.04.2013. Shri Shailendra Verma for the petitioner. Shri Bhagwan Singh for the respondent. Challenging the order-dated 16.7.2012 passed by the learned 1st Civil Judge Class I, Sidhi in Civil Suit No.1-B/2008, closing the right of evidence of petitioner/defendant, this writ petition has been filed. Plaintiff/respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through the District TeleCo.Engineer has filed the suit in question against the petitioner for recovery of `34,167/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24%. The case was fixed for evidence of the defendant. The defendant filed an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but on various dates as the witnesses of the defendant were not present, the Court has closed the right to cross-examine and lead evidence of the defendant, therefore, this writ petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the reco...
Smt. Shikha Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.12766/12 8.4.2013. Petitioner no.1 with Shri Ajeet Singh, Advocate. Shri Rajendra Gupta, Advocate for petitioner no.2,3 and 4. Petitioner no.2 Sanjay Singh is also present in person. Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, PL for State. Parties have been identified by Shri Ajeet Singh and Shri Rajendra Gupta, Advocates. Their presence be marked. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.has been filed by the petitioners jointly in order to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings against petitioner no.2 to 4 registered under Section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4of Dowry Prohibition Act as the matter has been compromised. I enquired from petitioner no.1 Smt.Shikha Singh (wife of petitioner no.2) and petitioner no.2 Sanjay Singh. They informed me that matter has 2 been compromised for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and divorce under Section 13-B has also been obtained. Counsel submits that since the matter is not compoundable learned trial Court has rejected the compromise. He submi...
Smt. Sushila Bai Swami Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
W.P.No.6086/13 8/04/13 Shri Aseem Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner's daughter-in-law has committed suicide and apprehending false implication, misappropriation and investigation into the matter, petitioner has represented to respondent No.3 and when no action is taken, this writ petition is filed. Taking note of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, for the present, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enter into the controveRs.on merit instead, interest of justice would be met if respondent No.3 would look into the matter and ensure that investigation is done in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »