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.
Smt.Manarojua Saket Vs. Purshottam Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 M.A.No.3136/07 3.4.2013 . None for the appellant. The appellant/ claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the sum awarded by the 4th Additional Claims Tribunal Rewa vide award dated 19.5.2007. This case is listed today for admission. It is noted that on earlier occasion on taking up the matter on 2.7.08 no one was present on behalf of the appellant, on which after giving the direction to call the record of the Tribunal the same was adjourned. After receiving the record the case was listed on 16.9.2011 but on taking up the matter for hearing on such date also no one was present to prosecute this appeal, consequently the case was adjourned by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the same position is today that on taking up the matter no one is present to prosecute this matter. In such premises it appears that the appellant is no more interested in prosecuting the present appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. (U. C.Maheshwari) Judge k...
Bhagat Singh Jhariya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No 14814/2012 03.04.2013 Shri R.S.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all the points before the trial Court at the stage of charge. Request is accepted. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. ( M.K.MUDGAL) JUDGE dixit/- M.Cr.C.No 8586/2011 03.04.2013 Shri Ashutosh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to argue the matter. Prayer is accepted. Let it be listed in the week commencing from 13.5.2013. ( M.K.MUDGAL) JUDGE dixit/- M.Cr.C.No 14482/2011 03.04.2013 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner in the second round. Default has not been removed as per direction of order dated 11.5.2012. Default be made good within a period of 15 days. Office to proceed further, thereafter. ( M.K.MUDGAL) JUDGE dixit/- M.Cr.C.No 3151/2013 03.04.2013 No one appear...
Mukesh Kumar Dubey Vs. R.S.Zulaniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
-1- C.P.No.1163/2013 3.4.2013 Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating proceedings against respondents for alleging noncompliance of order passed in W.P.No.7510/2008(s).Petitioner a Mechanic Grade III approached the Labour Court for seeking regularisation in the cadre of Mechanic Grade III and fix his pay in the scale of Rs.3050-4590 (Pre-revised).The claim of the petitioner was allowed by the Labour Court by order dated 19.11.2003. Whereagainst an appeal preferred under Section 65 of the M.P.Industrial Relation Act 1960 was dismissed on 31.3.2005 Against the order passed by the Industrial Court Writ Petition was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries vide Writ Petition No.7510/2008 which met the fate of dismissal by order dated 25.6.2012. The petitioner instead of executing the order passed as per the provision under the M.P.Industrial Relation Act or the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, as...
Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co.Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Mishr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 M.A.No.1071/2013. 3.4.2013 . None for the appellant. This case is listed today on the question of maintainability of this appeal. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of Workman Compensation Act, 1923 being aggrieved by the order dated 1.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner Workman Compensation, Labour Court Shahdol in Case No.102/Misc/12 whereby his application filed for appropriate direction to pay the sum of the fixed deposit receipt before its maturity, has been dismissed. Under the provision of aforesaid Act the impugned appeal is not maintainable because the same has not been filed against any final order of the Tribunal under the provision relating to pass the award. So in such premises, this appeal could not be entertained under the aforesaid provision of Section 30 of Workman Compensation Act. As such the impugned order is revisable under the law, consequently on such technical grounds without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this appeal is h...
Smt. Papya Chakrawarti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3101/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Bhuvneshwar S. Thakur, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilendra Kumar Singh, GA for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.103/2013 registered at Police Station Ranjhi, District Jabalpur for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. She has no criminal past. Learned counsel has further submitted that co-accused Arun Kumar Gupta has taken the money from the persons fraudulently for giving them employment in the Railway Department. Applicant is a lady, she had not deceived to complainant. The applicant is a reputed lady of the society and in the event of arrest, her reputation would be tarnished, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the State ...
Ashok Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3035/2013 3.4.2013 Shri T.K.Modh, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the second bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. Previous application M.Cr.C.No.15307/2012 was disposed of on 7.2.2013. The applicants are in custody since 5.12.2012 in connection with Crime No.347/2012 registered at P.S.Patan, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act and Sections 420 and 403 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were released on bail in the same crime number by this Court vide order dated 7.2.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act, however, at the time of filing of challan, the Police added the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 403 of the IPC, therefore, the applicants could not furnish the bail bonds i...
Malkhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
M.Cr.C. No.2317/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Mahesh Acharya, counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA, for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.120/2012 registered at Police Station Palohawada, District Narsinghpur for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 341, 323, 324, 307 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal past. Similarly placed co-accused Kalluram and Pattu @ Anrath have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 6.3.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.472/2013. Case of this applicant is similar to the case of co-accused. Applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation. He is reputed person of the society and in the event of arrest, his reputation would be tarnished, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. Learne...
Ram Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 W.P.No.19135/2012 3/4/2013: Shri B.K.Bais, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the Collector, Singrauli on a representation preferred by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation in pursuance to the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Similar orders passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the question of rejection of representation identical in nature without reference under Section 18 of the Act have been considered by this Court in various cases and on 2.12.2011 in W.P.No.20141/2011 - Aatma Ram and another versus State of M.P.& Others following orders were passed by this Court :- "On 13.8.2010, Collector, Singrauli who was acting under direction of this Court in W.P.No.5402/2010 dwelt upon the representation on merit and rejected the same holding that the petitioner is not entitled for enhancement and th...
Emmanuel Society Sehore Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1 W.P.No.3329/2013 3/4/2013: Shri Ashish Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5. Grievance of the petitioner is that recovery is being effected against the petitioner even though petitioner is not the defaulting society against whom the orders have been passed by the provident fund authorities. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 points out that the recovery Certificate has been received from the Provident Fund Organization in Karnpur (U.P.) and enquiry with regard to this aspect of the matter is in progress and steps for recovery will be taken only after a final decision is taken. Keeping in view the aforesaid, let a report be filed in the matter within two weeks. Till the enquiry is not completed, no coersive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Madina Bi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
CRR No.783/2011 Criminal Revision No.783/2011 3.4.2013 Shri Ashish Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. None for the respondent No.2. Heard on admission. The applicant/prosecutrix has challenged the impugned order dated 5.1.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.718/ 2010, whereby the respondent No.2 was discharged from the charge of offence punishable under section 376 of IPC. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the prosecutrix had stated before the police that she was married to one Sageer and since Sageer was residing with some other girl, therefore, she was residing with her parents. Thereafter, she had love affair with one Kamlesh Verma since last 7 yeaRs.The respondent No.2 Kamlesh Verma did not agree to marry with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix knew that Kamlesh Verma was going to marry with someone else and therefore, the prosecutrix tried to get her marriage with the respondent No.2. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- Next ›
- Last »