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.
Shiv Narayan Nai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
CRR No.261/2013 Criminal Revision No.261/2013 5.4.2013 Shri P.S.Gaharwar, counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicants have challenged the impugned order dated 23.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, District Singrauli in S.T.No.40/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under section 307 of IPC were framed against the applicants alongwith other charges. The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 4.9.2011, at village Nogai (Police Station Waidhan, District Singrauli).a quarrel took place between the applicants and the victiMs.It is alleged against the applicants that they assaulted the various victims including Lalbabu, Devicharan, Krishna Prasad and Mohar Kali. It was opined by the doctor that the victim Lalbabu sustained a fatal injury and therefore, a charge-sheet for offence punishable under section 307 of IPC was subm...
Radhika Prasad Namdeo Vs. Driver Naresh @ Bhoora
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 M.A No.3503/11 5.4.2013 Shri A.D. Mishra, learned for the appellant. None for the respondents no.1 & 2. Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/Insurer. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. Counsel of the respondent no.3 has taken notice of this admission hence, no further notice is required. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents no.1 & 2 although represented through duly engaged counsel so, in such premises, no fresh notices of this admission are required to such respondents. With the consent of the parties the appeal is heard finally. ORDER 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short the Act) for further enhancement of the sum awarded by the IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Katni, in Claim Case No.11/09, vide dated 22.7.2011 whereby, his claim relating to the injuries sustained by him in the alleged vehicular accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs.7,000...
Raja Ram Vs. Mst.Devtaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
SA 1034.06 Second Appeal No.1034 of 2006 (Raja Ram versus Mst. Devtaniya and seven otheRs.05-04-2013 Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the appellant. Received records from Trial Court and FiRs.Appellate Court. Heard on admission. Perused the records. Plaintiff's second appeal is directed against the dismissal of civil suit No.544-A/2002 (Decreed on 30-06-2005) and its affirmation in Civil Appeal No.99- A/2005, dismissed on 11-05-2006. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction was preferred by Appellant in respect of land bearing Survey No.641 admeasuring 1.10 acres situate at village Mandil, tahsil Huzur, district Rewa, on the ground that over said land name of one Sumena Singh Tiwari, husband of respondent/defendants No.1 and 2 and father of respondents No.3 to 7 was recorded in revenue records. Wherein name of appellant/plaintiff was recorded in pursuance to order dated 15-10-1970 passed in mutation proceedings. However, in a revision by respondents No.1 to 7 the order dat...
Neetesh Prasad Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 W.P.No.11550/09 5/04/13 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2009 and the complaint made by the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that petitioner has completed a diploma couRs.in X-Ray and ECG technology from the institute of respondent No.3 but the petitioner's application for registration under the statute is not being taken note of and the M.P.Paramedical Council respondent No.2 is not issuing necessary registration certificates to the petitioner inspite of the fact that the matter is pending for more than four yeaRs.Notices have been issued in November, 2011 and till date respondents have not filed any reply. From the records, it is seen that petitioner has obtained a Diploma certificate in the CouRs.in question from the institute of respondent No.3 and has submitted a proper application in the statutory form before the M.P.Paramedical Council seeking re...
Sudina Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 M.A.No.223/09. 5.4.2013 . None for the appellants This case is listed today for admission. The record of the Tribunal has already been received long before. In the absence of the appellant and his counsel this appeal could not be considered on the question of admission. Even otherwise in view of the provision of Order 41 Rule 17 of CPC in the absence of the appellant this appeal could not be considered on merits. In such premises there is only option with the Court either to adjourn the case or to dismiss the same for want of prosecution. Earlier this case was listed on 19.8.2011 but it is apparent from the order sheet that on such date also no one was present to prosecute this appeal. In such premises it appears that the appellants are no more interested in prosecuting the present appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. (U. C.Maheshwari) Judge k...
Smt. Ranjana Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
W.P.No.14829/2011 05/04/2013 Smt. Vandana Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Pushpendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Under similar circumstances with regard to the similar relief claimed, on 5.1.2012 W.P.No.11986/2011 has been disposed of in following terms : The claim made in this petition is for grant of installment facility to repay the loan taken by the petitioners from Respondent No.2 for which Revenue Recovery Certificate has been issued. It is contended that looking to the financial condition of the petitioneRs.they are not in a position to deposit the amount of loan in lumpsum and, therefore, a facility of installment for payment of loan amount be granted to him. Opposing the claim of petitioneRs.a return has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 contending inter alia that the loan was taken in the year 1998 and not a single installment has been paid by the petitioneR...
Sheikh Firoz Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
M.Cr.C.No.14051/2012 5.4.2013 Shri S.K.Gangrade, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. Previous application M.Cr.C.No.8867/2012 was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.10.2012. The applicant is in custody since 26.12.2011 in connection with Crime No.132/2011 registered at P.S.G.R.P.District Khandwa for the offence punishable under Section 328 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. After dismissal of previous application, as many as 4 witnesses have been examined by the trial Court. The applicant is in custody for more than 15 months and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, period of custody of the...
Sohrab @ Raju Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1603/2005 Sohrab Vs. State of MP Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellant : Shri Rajeev Badkul, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, PL JUDGMENT (05.04.2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.07.2005 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jabalpur in Session Trial No.184/05 whereby the appellant having been found guilty of an offence punishable under section 489(C) of the I.P.C. has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and additional period of six months imprisonment in case of default of deposit of the fine.2. The prosecution case against the appellant is that on 15.12.2004 when the police raided the premises of Anwar alias Baba falling under the jurisdiction of Police Station, Hanumantal, Jabalpur in the afternoon, the accused Anwar alias Baba, Farjan, Mumtaz, Siraz alias Puttar, Moi...
Dilip Buildcon Ltd Vs. Dnn Media Communication Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR COMP. PET. No.6 OF 201.Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Applicant versus DNN Media Communication Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra MeNo........................................................................................................... Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner. .................................................................................................. ORDER (5/04/13) As per Rajendra Menon, J:- This application has been filed under Section 391 r/w 394 of the Companies Act in the matter of approval of a scheme of arrangement with regard to demerger of the companies in question namely Dilip Buildcon Ltd. (Amalgamating Co. or the Transferer Co.) and D N N Media Communication Pvt. Ltd. (Amalgamated Co. or the Transferee Co.).2. A copy of the proposed scheme for arrangement for demerger is filed along with the petition.3. The Registered office of both the Amalgamating Co. and Amalgamated Co. are situated with...
Sahid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1642/2005 Sahid Vs. State of MP Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellant : Shri Rajeev Badkul, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, PL JUDGMENT (05.04.2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.07.2005 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jabalpur in Session Trial No.184/05 whereby the appellant having been found guilty of an offence punishable under section 489(C) of the I.P.C. has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- and additional period of six months imprisonment in case of default of deposit of the fine.2. The prosecution case against the appellant is that on 15.12.2004 when the police raided the premises of Anwar alias Baba falling under the jurisdiction of Police Station, Hanumantal, Jabalpur in the afternoon, the accused Anwar alias Baba, Farjan, Mumtaz, Siraz alias Puttar, Moin...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »