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.
Mahendra Lal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
Writ Petition No :5717. 2013 Mahendra Lal versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 4.04.2013. Shri Ashok Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Against the order-dated 16.1.2012 Annexure P/2, petitioner has a remedy of filing a writ petition before the Board of Revenue. But, it seems that the petitioner could not file the revision within the statutory period of limitation and, therefore, has approached this Court. Petitioner is a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community and keeping in view the rights of the petitioner, interest of justice requires that he should be granted permission to file the revision and the delay in filing the same should be condoned. In view of the above, it is directed that in case petitioner files an application before the Board of Revenue against the order in question, within a period of 15 days from today, the Board of Revenue shall consider and decide the revision of the petitioner on ...
Anil Kumar Shukla Vs. Executive Engineer Narmda Development Di
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR First Appeal No.217/2007 Anil Kumar Shukla and others..Appellants Versus Executive Engineer, Narmada Development Division No.8, Sihora, District Jabalpur, and another....Respondents For the appellants : Shri D. K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Smt. D. K. Bohre, Government Advocate. ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M. K. MUDGAL ****** JUDGMENT (4.4.2013) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by : Ajit Singh, J.This appeal, by the land owners, has been filed against the award dated 9.1.2007 passed by the Reference Court Fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Land Acquisition Case No.3/2005.2. The facts in short are these. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act.) for acquisition of 10.877 hectares of agricultural land was published in the official gazette dated 5.11.2004. Thereafter, notification under section 6 was published on 7.12...
Shiv Pal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1 M.Cr.C.No.958/07 & M.Cr.C.No.967/07 04.04.2013. Shri Prakash Gupta, Adv.for petitioner Shiv Pal Singh in M.Cr.C.No.958/07 and Shri P.N.Dubey, Adv.for petitioner R.K.Singh in M.Cr.C.No.967/07. Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, PL for the respondent-State. Shri Vivek Baderia, Advocate for respondent No.2 to 4 in M.Cr.C.No.958/07, and for respondent No.1 to 3 in M.Cr.C.No.967/07. None for other respondents. Heard finally. ORDER As the controveRs.involved in the aforesaid two petitions are identical, I have heard both the matters analogously and propose to dispose of both the matters by this common order. These petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.has been filed in order to invoke the extra ordinary power of this Court to quash the adveRs.remarks passed against the petitioners by 4th Addl.Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No.282/06 on 16.11.06. In nut shell the facts of the case are that there was some dispute between Vyanktesh Singh, Hirendra Singh , Rajendra Singh against Mahesh Pratap Si...
Smt. Ahilya Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4007/2013 4.4.2013 Shri G.P.Patel, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.7299/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.50/2013 registered at P.S.Themi, District Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 324, 326, 506/34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Nothing has been alleged against the applicants that they used any deadly weapon by which the complainant has sustained injuries. The main allegation is against co-accused Dipak, who is alleged to have caused grievous injuries to the complainant by using a knife, therefore, prima facie no offence under Section 326 of the IPC is made out against the applicants. Remaining offences are bailable. The applicants are ready to co-operate in the investigation...
Ram Kripal Sahu Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.815/2004 Ramkripal Sahu Vs. The State of MP Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the appellant : Shri S.K. Dwivedi , advocate. For the respondents : Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, P.L. JUDGMENT (04.04.2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment dated 30.04.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar in S.T. No.204/2003 whereby he has been found guilty for an offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-.2. The brief facts relating to the incident are that while the complainant Mathura Prasad PW/2 and his father Chutkai were going for work, the accused Ramkripal Sahu came on a cycle accosted and abused his father Chutkai for not removing the garbage from his field and thereafter when his father Chutkai asked him not to abuse him he struck him with a stick on his head on account of which his f...
Gulab Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4246/2013 4.4.2013 Shri Aniruddh Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was released on temporary bail by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2012 passed in M.Cr.C.No.11297/2012 with direction to surrender before the trial Court today i.e.on 4.4.2013 positively, however, the applicant is still under treatment and he needs some more time to surrender before the trial Court, therefore, the time of temporary bail granted on 30.11.2012 be extended. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. I have perused the previous order by which the applicant was released on temporary bail. The applicant was released on temporary bail by this Court because he was suffering with Asthma. not the winter seas...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Timarni
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
I.T.A.No.190/2009 04.04.2013 Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant- revenue. Shri G.N.Purohit, learned Senior Advocate with MRS.Uma Parashar, Advocate for the respondent- assessee. This appeal was admitted on 16.12.2009 on the following two substantial questions of law:- "(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not upholding the addition of Rs.17,94,021/- being the disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets even when entire expenditure incurred towards purchase of fixed assets has already been claimed in entirety either in the current year or in earlier year and if depreciation is allowed on such assets it would amount to double deduction?. (II) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in not upholding the disallowances of Rs.8,70,614/- on account of payment towards pension fund when no liability of revenue nature was determined?. This appeal is directed against an order dated 2...
Netram Lodhi Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
Cr.A.No.900/2004 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.900/2004 Netram Lodhi Versus State of M.P. ______________________________________________ Shri Harpreet learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Y. Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ______________________________________________ PRESENT : Honble Shri R.S. Jha, J.: JUDGMENT (04-04-2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court dated 29.4.2004 by which, he has been convicted for offence punishable under section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-.2. The prosecution story is that the accused was caught while attempting to escape and on search, was found to be carrying 40 grams of smack in the sole of his shoes. He was searched in front of witnesses. The Cr.A.No.900/2004 substance seized from him was sent fo...
Smt. Annpurnaa Dubey Vs. the Collector, Jabalpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
W.P.No.5708/2013 04/04/2013 Shri AdaRs.Muni Trivedi, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Ashish Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Prima-facie, from the material available on record, it is seen that petitioner has not been dispossessed, she is still in possession and, therefore, by virtue of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, not possession cannot be taken over. Respondents are directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner and status-quo in the matter, as is existing today, shall be maintained until further ordeRs.Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Rampati Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1 W.P.No.6255/13 4/04/13 Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Making a complaint for adequate compensation, a benefit of rehabilitation scheme has not been granted after acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, petitioner has filed this writ petition. If the compensation has not been granted properly, petitioner has a remedy of seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the remedy available under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, this petition is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Vy/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »