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. Sajida Bano (Begum) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 MCRC. No.242 /2013 1.4.2013 Shri S.K.Patel Adv.for the petitioners/applicants. Shri Satya Prakash Chadar, P.L., for state. Heard on an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C.This is fiRs.bail application of applicants, who are women and arrested on 10.10.2012 in connection with crime no.588/2012 of PS Panna MP for the offence punishable u/ss. 304 B and 498/34 of IPC and u/s 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant No.1 Smt. Sajida Bano(Begum) is mother-in-law and applicant No.2 Smt.Sona is Jethani of the deceased Annu Bano and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Deceased in her dying declaration did not make any allegation regarding demand of dowry and after two months' of the incident , the naptual side had lodged report with the allegation for demand of dowry. He further submits that the applicants are ladies and they are in jail since last about six months' and as per dying declaration, no case u/s 304-B IPC is made out and at the mos...
Ranjeet Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 MCRC. No.2669 /2013 1.4.2013 Shri Anoop Saxena, Adv.for the petitioner/applicant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate, for state. Heard on an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C.This is fiRs.bail application of applicant, who is arrested on 18.8.2012 in connection with crime no.195/2011 of PS Chandla District Chhatarpur MP for the offence punishable u/ 394 of IPC and u/s 25/26 of Arms Act . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. In this case not only challan has been filed but evidence of five prosecution witness has been examined in the trial and no body has stated against the applicant. Petitioner is in jail, he is the only earning member of his family hence he be released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the certified copy of the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the State has objected for grant of bail. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence together with duration ...
Smt.Pushpa Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Writ Petition No ::19732. / 2012 Smt. Pushpa Jaiswal and others versus State of MP and others 01.04.2013. Shri Ashish Rawat for the petitioneRs.Challenging the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur as contained in Annexure P/8, on 25.9.2012, petitioners have filed this writ petition. It is seen that inadvertently the order in question Annexure P/8 dated 25.9.2012 has been passed in this case whereas the subject matter of the order in question impugned is already passed in another case, which is pending before this Court i.e W.P.No.19737/2012. A perusal of the order passed in W.P.No.19737/2012 and the impugned order goes to show that both are identical in terms and, therefore, Shri Rawat is right in contending that inadvertently a wrong order has been passed in this case. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Order - Annexure P/8 dated 25.9.2012 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur to decide the claim af...
Ashish Handa Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
W.P.No.5568/2013 01/04/2013 Shri Atul Awasthi , learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the action initiated by the Respondent/Bank for auctioning of the property in question in accordance with provisions of Section 13 r/w Section 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SERFAESI).petitioner has filed this writ petition. Challenge is made to the auction proceedings being initiated mainly on the ground that the petitioner has given some application for payment of the amount and not the auction should not be undertaken. A bench of this Court in the case of Ram Singh versus State of M.P.& ORS.2013(1) MPLJ 11 has held that against an order passed under the provisions of Section 13 r/w Section 14 of the SERFAESI ACT, remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SERFAESI ACT is available and, therefore, a writ petition directly before this Court is not maintainable. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principle and fi...
Mohd. Akhtar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 MCRC. No.2686 /2013 1.4.2013 Shri Manish Gavane, Adv.for the petitioner/applicant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate, for state. Heard on an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C.This is fiRs.bail application of applicant, Mohd Akhtar who is arrested on 19.1.2013 in connection with crime no.13/2013 of PS Amarwada District Chhindwara MP for the offence punishable u/ 376 and 506 of IPC . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Prosecutrix is daughter of Mohd.Qureshi, aged about 23 years and she is a major and the report has been lodged after lapse of six months from the date of incident. Petitioner is in jail, he is the only earning member of his family hence he be released on bail. Learned counsel for the State has objected the bail on the ground that applicant had committed rape with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case without commenting on merit of the case in the opinion ...
Commissioner, Costoms and Central Excise Vs. M/S Narmada Gelatines Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
C.E.A.No.7/2013 1.4.2013 Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, counsel for appellant. This appeal is under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is admitted on the following substantial question of law :- Whether on the facts and circumstances, the respondent was entitled to take the credit to the extent the input (Hydrochloric Acid) was used in the manufacturing of bye-product Di-Calcium Phosphate and enriched Di-Calcium Phosphate by not maintaining separate account as envisaged under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?.. Issue notice to the other side. Steps within a period of two weeks by Regd. A.D.mode. Be listed for hearing along with C.E.A.No.24/2009. C.C., as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (B.D.Rathi) JUDGE JUDGE M....
Jagdish Mehra Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.598/2005 Jagdish. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Hemant Namdeo, Advocate for the applicant from the side of the Legal Services Authority. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 1st day of April, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for each count vide judgment dated 23.11.2004 passed by the JMFC Narsinghpur (Shri D.R.Ahirwar) in Criminal Case No.861/2004. In Criminal Appeal No.28/2005 the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Narsinghpur vide judgment dated 15.3.2005 maintained the conviction, but sentence was reduced to one years rigorous impr...
Manish Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3921/2013 1.4.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State. Admit. Call for the case diary. Heard on I.A.No.7186/2013, an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.131/2013 registered at P.S.Kotwali, District Mandla, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is husband of Ranjana Tiwari. Initially, Ranjana lodged a report against the applicant at P.S.Mandla and the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506 of the IPC were registered against the applicant, thereafter, Tarawati, mother of Ranjana again lodged a concocted report on the basis of the same incident in order to harass the applicant. Counsel has further submitted that it is a matrimonial matter, in the event of arrest, chances of compromise between the parti...
Nand Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2426/2013 1.4.2013 Shri Sanjeev Saxena, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail. The applicants are in custody since 4.2.2013 in connection with Crime No.35/2013 registered at P.S.Gohparu, District Shahdol for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 326 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. It is alleged that complainant Brijesh is more than 18 years of age. He is an unmarried person. The applicants lured the complainant for getting the money from State exchequer for performing vasectomy. The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and ...
Purushottam Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.236/2013 1.4.2013 Shri Y.M.Tiwari, counsel for the applicants. Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 18.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya in S.T.No.76/2011, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 498-A, 306 read with section 34 of IPC and in alternate, section 302 read with section 34 of IPC were framed against the applicants. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the deceased Sukhiya Bai was the wife of Purushottam Patel, who committed suicide after 30 years of her marriage. The parents and relatives of the deceased have made omnibus allegations about harassment done by the applicants to the deceased and they also made their suspicion that the deceased was administered poison by the applicants. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looki...
- ‹ Prev
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 71
- 72
- 73
- Next ›
- Last »