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.
Bhaya Nath Sapera Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
-(1)- Cr. Appeal No.2421/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2421/2005 Bhaiyalal Nath Sapera & others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh PRESENT: Honble Shri Justice R.S. JHA, J.----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Asgari Khan, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (05-04-2013) The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-9-2005 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in S.T. No.78/2005 whereby the appellants have been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to seven years' R.I. each with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of the same a further sentence of 15 days each.2. The prosecution case is that complainant Jamna Prasad was living with hi...
Arjun Ghosh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 W.P.No.4742/2013 5/4/2013: Shri A.K.Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Challenging the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jatara as contained in Annexure P/3 dated 23.7.2010 cancelling the license to run a fair price shop and the order Annexure P/5 dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority namely the Collector, Tikamgarh rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of want of prosecution, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Even though various grounds are made on merit with regard to order of cancellation but the fact remains that appeal filed by the petitioner has not been adjudicated on merits, only it has been dismissed for want of prosecution. It is seen that counsel was entrusted with the matter and in the absence of information from the counsel, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court for interference. Tak...
Smt. Meera Bai Vs. Driver Naresh @ Bhoora
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 M.A No.3504/11 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.15/09, vide dated 22.7.2011 whereby, her claim relating to the injuries sustained by him in the alleged vehicular accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs.7,000...
Satpuda Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 W.P.No.4861/2013 5/4/2013: Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents on advance notice. Making a complaint with regard to not consideration and inaction on the part of the competent authority in deciding petitioner's application for renewal of the quarry lease, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.17610/2010 and on 27.12.2012 vide order Annexure P/6 the said writ petition was disposed of directing the Director, Mining to consider the application of the petitioner and decide it within a period of 8 weeks. However, as certain interim benefit pending finalization of renewal application was not taken note of a Review Petition was filed and as the Bench which passed the order in the original writ petition was not available in accordance to the High Court Rules, Review Petition was placed for orders before the appropriate Division Bench and on 25.2.2013 vide Annexure P/9 Review Petition No.103/2013 has been dispos...
Dilshad @ Kariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1868/2005 Dilshad alias Kariya 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(A) of the I.P.C. has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and additional period of 1 years 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 ...
Ogist Pandey @bhole Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
-(1)- Cr. Appeal No.2463/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2463/2005 Ogist Pandey alias Bhole Versus State of Madhya Pradesh PRESENT: Honble Shri Justice R.S. JHA, J.----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Shashi Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (05-04-2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9-9-2005 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, in S.T. No.49/2004 whereby the appellant has been found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof to further undergo imprisonment for two months. He has also been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304 (B) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years.2. The pros...
Ramsu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Writ Petition No :4239. / 2013 RaMs.and others versus State of MP and others 05.04.2013. Shri S.D.Mishra for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Challenging the order-dated 9.10.2012 Annexure P/6, passed by the Board of Revenue, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners on the ground of delay, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioners claim to be rustic and poor agriculturists, who were granted Patta by the Government for the land in question. However, as action was taken exercising the powers of suo motu revision for cancelling the Patta, matter was agitated by the petitioners and finally an order was passed by the Additional Commissioner, on 8.1.2007 in the matter of cancellation of Patta of the petitioneRs.Challenging this order- dated 8.1.2007, passed by the Additional Commissioner, the revision in question was filed before the Board of Revenue after a period of more than 4 years and on the ground that delay ha...
Maya Bai Vs. Driver Naresh @ Bhoora
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1 M.A No.3505/11 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.10/09, vide dated 22.7.2011 whereby, her claim relating to the injuries sustained by him in the alleged vehicular accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs.7,000...
Bhagwandas @ B.D. Sonkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2916/2013 5.4.2013 Shri Pushprndra Dubey, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. FiRs.and third applications were dismissed as withdrawn. Second application was dismissed on merits because at the time of arguments, misstatement was made before the Court. The applicant is in custody since 13.2.2012 in connection with Crime No.176/2012 registered at P.S.Gohalpur, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 506, 307, 294, 323, 34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. After dismissal of previous applications, during trial the charge against applicant has been amended and the charge has been reduced from Section 307 to 326 of the IPC. The applicant is in custody since 13.2.2012 and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he b...
Shakeel Ahmad Vs. Afsaba Begum
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
CRR No.508/2013 Criminal Revision No.508/2013 5.4.2013 Shri Mohd. Ali, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the impugned order dated 17.1.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdol in MJ.No.79/2011, whereby I.A.No.13 filed by the applicant under section 311 of the Cr.P.C.was dismissed. The facts of the case, in short, are that, one application for maintenance was moved by the respondents before the Family Court, in which the respondent No.1 Afsana Begum was examined and cross-examined in due course. The applicant has moved an application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C.on the ground that a counter blast has been done by the respondent No.1 by lodging an FIR for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC against the applicant, his elder brother and sister- in-law. Under such circumstances, the questions are to be asked to the respondent No.1 on that count. The learn...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »