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.
Dilip Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4016/2013 4.4.2013 Shri Ashish Sinha, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.7308/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.31/2013 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Sehore for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. Complainant Aarti is wife of applicant No.1 Dilip. Their marriage was solemnized in January, 2012. The complainant left her matrimonial house without informing anyone in the month of June. Missing report was lodged by the applicants, she was traced by the Police, her statement was recorded but she did not make any statement in regard to demand of dowry by the applicants, thereafter, she went her parental house and lodged false report against applicants. Counsel ha...
Radhaswami Institute of Technology Vs. All India Council for Technical ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
W.P. No.2621/13 04042013 Shri Siddharth Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Sharma, counsel for the respondents. Dr. Sandeep Saladkar, Assistant Regional Officer of respondent No.2 is also present. This matter relates to grant of annual extension of approval of the petitioner for existing approved 120 seats of Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) Course, for which, as per the petitioner, the application filed by the petitioner was not accepted on the portal of the respondent and thereafter hard copy of the application was also not accepted by respondent No.2 in spite of our order dated 25.2.2013. It is submitted by Shri Gupta that in respect of other courses the petitioner herein has already submitted application on website portal and this matter relates to extension of approval of 120 seats of Polytechnic Course, which could No. be applied, because the Portal was not open for the same. It is submitted that respondent No.2 may be direct...
M.P. Hastshilp Avum Hathkargha Nigam Khajuraho Vs. Neeraj Narayan Agra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1 RP No.414/2012 4/4/2013: Shri H.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent No.3. Seeking review / clarification of an order dated 29.2.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18276/2011 applicant M.P.Hastshilp Avum Hathkargha Nigam, Khajuraho has filed this application. Respondents Neeraj Narayan Agarwal and Suraj Narayan Agarwal filed W.P.No.18276/2011 before this Court and it was their grievance that an execution proceeding is pending in the Executing Court since 6.11.95 and as the execution proceedings are not being concluded inspite of the fact that demarcation report has been submitted by the Tahsildar on 22.9.2009, they approached this Court with a prayer that Executing Court be directed to conclude the execution within a reasonable time. Taking note of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioners in the original writ petition, the following directions were issued b...
Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Smt.Prathibha Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1 MCRC. No 8855 /2006 4.4.2013 Smt. Amrit Ruprah, Adv.for the petitioner/s. None for respondent/complainant though she was represented through counsel. Heard . Since nobody is present on behalf of respondent, who is complainant in this case and this petition has been filed in order to quash the proceedings pending before JMFC Rehli in Criminal Case No.619/2005 hence presence of respondent /complainant is necessary for hearing. Office is directed to issue SPC to the respondent for a date to be fixed by the office so respondent may get an opportunity to defend her case. IR to continue. List on 14.5.2013. (M.A.Siddiqui ) JUDGE Ag/...
Heeralal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4047/2013 4.4.2013 Shri A.D.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 fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.138/2013 registered at P.S.Chourai, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Section 354 a 1(1) (2) of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The Police has registered the office under Section 354 a 1(1)(2) of the IPC, however, on the date of incident i.e.9/10.3.2013, the aforesaid provision was not in force. Only proposal was pending in the Parliament, therefore, the offence should be under Section 354 of the IPC, which is bailable. The applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial. The applicant is a reputed citizen of ...
Rakesh Pavya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4057/2013 4.4.2013 Ms.Amrit Ruprah, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.7363/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.142/2012 registered at P.S.Bijawar, District Chhatarpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Initially, an enquiry was conducted in regard to the forged mark-sheet and a latter (A-6) was written by DEO, Chhtarpur to the Collector, Chhatarpur, thereafter, a complaint was made in Lokayukt, thereafter, CMO, Chhatarpur wrote a letter (A-10) to Vice Chancellor, Devi Ahilya University and enquired about the truthfulness of mark-sheet of applicant of B.Sc. III. Vice Chancellor sent reply (A-11) mentioning that the mark-sheet is not forged. In the meanwh...
Arjun Basdeva Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3974/2013 4.4.2013 Shri Sandeep Shukla, 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 application has been filed by the applicant for correction in the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.2013/2013, by which the applicant was released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to inadvertent mistake, in the cause title of M.Cr.C.No.2013/2013, District Bhopal was mentioned in place of District Rewa, which has also been mentioned in the order dated 20.3.2013, therefore, the order dated 20.3.2013 be modified to that extent. Considering the averments made in the application, this application is allowed. It is ordered that in the fiRs.paragraph of order dated 20.3.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2013/2013, District Rewa be read in place of District Bhopal. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. (G.S.Solanki) Judge PB...
Lal Singh Marabi Vs. Pickku @ Prakash Jharia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.4056 OF 200.LALSINGH MARABI Versus. PICKKU @ PRAKASH JHARIA AND OTHERS For appellant : Smt. Devika Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Sanjay Agrawal with Shri Pramod Sahu. ORDER (Oral) (04.04.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Xth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jabalpur, in Claim Case No.82/05, vide award dated 22.4.2006, whereby exonerating the respondent no.3/Insurance Company, his claim for the injury sustained in a vehicular accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs.2,75,000/- with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. on 13.7.2004, against the respondents no.1 & 2 by saddling their liability to pay such sum jointly and severally.2. The facts giving rise to ...
Prabhat Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1436/2013 4.4.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Counsel with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Shri O.P.Choubey, Advocate for the objector. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.772/2012 registered at P.S.Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 201 of the IPC. As per prosecution, it is alleged that co-accused Abhishek @ Guddu committed theft of golden ornaments from the house of complainant and thereafter sold the same to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is apprehending is arrest on the basis of statement of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He is an owner of Swarnim Jewellers and co-accused Abhishek @ Guddu was a regular customer of hi...
Brahma Narayan Singh Vs. Man Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
W.P.No.5735/2013 4.4.2013 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.Tiwari, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents No.14, 15 and 16. It is submitted by Shri Kaurav that as name of the Advocate General is not appearing in cause list, so the brief of the case is not available with him. He prays for time to seek instructions in the matter from respondents No.14,15 and 16. Prayer allowed. Petitioner is directed to serve one more copy of the petition to Shri Kaurav, during couRs.of the day, against acknowledgment. During couRs.of the hearing, it is stated by Shri Shrivastava that an ex-parte injunction order was passed by respondent No.16 on 23.2.2013. The petitioners were not served before passing ex-parte temporary injunction order. When the petitioners went to the office of respondent No.16 to inspect the file, it was intimated to them that the file is under the lock and key of respondent No.16 and they were not p...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »