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.
Dr. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
WRIT PETITION No.5235/20002. 04.2013 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri D.S.Baghel, learned Counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the document filed and relied by the petitioner as Annexure P-12/A is said to be a forged document as alleged in the additional reply by the respondent No.4, it would be necessary for him to meet out such allegations by filing additional rejoinder and for the said purpose a week's time is sought for. Let the petition be listed in the week commencing 15th April, 2013 for the purpose of filing additional rejoinder. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Rajesh @ Jadu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
(1) Cr.A.No.1097/2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1097/2007 APPELLANT: Rajesh @ Jadu S/o Babulal by caste Rajput, aged 30 years R/o Village Nahali Kala, P.S. Chhepawad District Harda M.P.. Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Shri L.N.Sakle, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer. Date of hearing :21. 03/2013 Date of judgment:02. 04/2013 Per: Rakesh Saksena;J.(JUDGMENT ) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 7th May, 2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Harda in Sessions Trial No.24/2006, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 3000/- and rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 500/-, on each ...
Ashok Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
1 W.P.No.3135/2013 2/4/2013: Shri Sankalp Kochar with Shri Mahendra Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply. In the meanwhile, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 13(7) and (9) of the M.P.Minot Mineral Rules, petitioner is granted liberty to file an application before the Collector seeking extension of time for granting him permission of mining work for the period when the operation of the mine by the petitioner was prevented on the alleged illegal act of the respondents. If such an application is filed, the learned Collector shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders with regard to extension of lease for the period petitioner was prevented from doing mining work i.e.7 months and 13 days in accordance to law within a period of 30 days. List the matter in the week commencing 13th May, 2013. c.c.as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra...
Surendra Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
1 MCRC. No.2799 /2013 MCRC. No.2799 /2013 2.4.2013 Shri Ashok Chakarvarty, Adv.for the petitioner/applicant. Shri Rohani Prasad Tiwari, G.A.for the State. Heard on an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C.This fiRs.bail application of the applicant. Applicant Surendra Dubey apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.02/13 registered at Police Station-Dheemerkheda, District- Katni under Sections 509 of IPC and u/s 12 and 13 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (N0. 32 of 2012) (hereinafter referred to 'the Act 2012').Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation against the applicant is that he by showing photograph of prosecutrix, who is 16 yeaRs.age, threatened her to defame her in the eye of society, committed the aforesaid offences. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State objected the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence u/s 12 of the Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant which is punishable with imprisonment of eit...
M/S Sarita Steel Chatarpur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
W.P.No.4745 of 2012 W.P.No.4748 o2. 4.2013. Shri Dildar Singh for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh for the respondents/State. This order shall decide W.P.No.4745/12 and W.P.No.4748/12 involving similar question. W.P.No.4745/12 relates to commercial tax and W.P.No.4748/12 relates to entry tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents which were seized during the search were not supplied to the petitioner. The entire business, at the relevant time, was taken care by the father of the petitioner namely; Ashok Kumar Agrawal who has died in the year 2003 while at the relevant time the petitioner Ajay Agrawal was student and was not aware in respect of the affairs of the business. That until and unless copies of the documents were supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner was unable to submit any explanation in that regard. That various amount of taxe were deposited with the department, though the revisional authority have found that the aforesaid amount were deposite...
Dhan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
1 MCRC. No.2608 /2013 2.4.2013 Shri R.S.Tiwari, Adv.for the petitioner/applicant. ShriPuneet Shroti, P.L.for state. Heard . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in jail since more than one year and up till not fourteen witnesses have been examined in the case and they have not deposed against the applicant . There is no prima facie case is made out against the applicant . Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it deserves to call for the progress report of the trial of ST No.62/12 (State v. Dharm Singh and another) pending before FiRs.Addition Sessions Judge Narsinghpur MP within a period of fortnight. List on 25.4.2013. (M.A.Siddiqui ) JUDGE Ag/ 1...
Pramod Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
Cr.R.No.718/2009 02.04.2013 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge under ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Raisen whereby the learned Special Judge did not find the applicant to be a juvenile, and therefore the application dated 5.8.2006 filed by the applicant was dismissed. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the incident took place on 3.10.2006. According to the Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2007.) the age of the accused shall be computed by the various documents and the priorities fixed in that rule. According to that priority, if the matriculation certificate or an equ...
Uma Shankar Dahiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :6073. of 2013 Uma Shankar Dahiya - V/s - State of MP & Collector, District, Jabalpur. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Praveen Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PL, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 02/04/2013 Petitioner claims to be in possession of certain agricultural land, which was given to his ancestors much prior to coming into force of the M P Land Revenue Code, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Code).It is stated that in the settlement process that was conducted sometime in the year 1923-1924, the then Zamindars / Malgujars of the land gave the land to the ancestors of the petitioner, as they were working as Kotwars and since then the petitioner is in possession of the ...
Badri Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
M.Cr.C. No.2413/2013 2.4.2013 Shri Ashish Kurmi, counsel for the applicant. Shri C.K. Mishra, GA, for the respondent/State. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.42/2013 registered at Police Station Rahatgarh, District Sagar for offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 189, 506(b), 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that adinterim anticipatory bail was granted by this Court vide Order dated 28.2.2013. Applicant has not misused the liberty granted to him, therefore he prays for confirmation of the aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the State formally opposes the prayer. Since the applicant was released on adinterim anticipatory bail on 28.2.2013 and misuse of liberty has not been reported, in these circumstances, the order passed on 28.2.2013 is hereby made absolute and this order shall remain in force for ...
Parmu @ Madan Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2340/2013 2.4.2013 Shri Sushil Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA, for the State. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 18.10.2012 in connection with Crime No.123/12 registered at Police Station Chargawan for offence punishable under Sections 294, 307, 452 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is a case of single blow. At the most, it may be a case for offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, prays for grant of bail to applicant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties along with facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bai...
- ‹ Prev
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- Next ›
- Last »