Madhya Pradesh Court May 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.
Mangal Singhshivhare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Cr. Revision No.349/2013 1.5.2013 Shri A.K.Jain, Advocate for applicant. Shri Punit Shroti, PL for State. Admit. Record is available. Heard on I.A.No.9185/2013, which is an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the applicant. The applicant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I.for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000/-, R.I.for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I.for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 21.2.2013 and revision would take considerable time to dispose of finally, therefore, jail sentence of applicant be suspended and he be released on bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case for suspension of...
Anil Kumar Chandel Vs. Ravi Kumar Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
MA No.2340.11 Misc. Appeal No.2340 of 2011 (Anil Kumar Chandel versus Ravi Kumar Mishra and two otheRs.01/05/2013 Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 19-04-2011, the claimant has preferred this Appeal for enhancement of compensation. The claim of compensation was in lieu of the injuries sustained by the appellant on 10-02-2009 when at about 10.15 A.M., he while coming out of the petrol pump on his two wheeler : MP-20-MD-3768 was dashed at by respondent No.1 who was riding another two wheeler not MP-04- NU-9758. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record arrived at a finding that both, the appellant and the rider of another vehicle, were responsible for the accident as they both were negligently driving. The negligence of the appellant was assessed to 40% and that of the rider of another vehicle 60%. Regarding injury, Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration that the appellant sustained fract...
Khittu Gond Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.2164/2012 1.5.2013 Shri Alok Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by judgment dated 1.11.2012 passed by Nineteenth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.324/2011 affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by JMFC, Jabalpur vide order dated 30.8.2011 passed by in Criminal Case No.17923/2009 whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I.for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation. As per prosecution case, on 15.10.1999, complainant Madan Gaud lodged a report that applicant and co-accused Gudda Gaud abused him and assaulted him by lathi. On the basis of aforesaid report, Crime No.163/99 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 324, 50...
Viom Networks Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
W.P.No.3528/2013 01.05.2013 Shri Brian D'Silva, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V. Bhide, for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.2/ State. I.A.No.5583/2013 for modification of interim order dated 05.03.2013. By the aforesaid order, this Court after hearing the parties directed thus:- "By way of interim relief we consider it appropriate to restrain the respondents from demolishing the tower which was erected from 2002 onwards until further ordeRs.however, petitioners shall not erect any fresh toweRs.Parties to take note that the matter can be disposed of at the admission stage. In the meanwhile, petitioners shall not erect any fresh toweRs.In the meanwhile, by way of ad interim injunction we consider it appropriate to direct the petitioners to put up notices on all structures which are used by the public such as large buildings used for schools and hospitals, which are within the affected zone of the Tower, as prescribed by the DOT guidelines within a pe...
Hemend Dubey (Correct Name Is Hemendra Dubey) Vs. the State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.535/2013 1.5.2013 Shri A. Usmani, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, PL for the State. Heard finally. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.being aggrieved by order dated 6.3.2013 passed by Fifteenth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.103/2013 whereby the charges under Section 376(1).506(1) of the IPC have been framed against the applicant. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision petition are that complainant/prosecutrix Manisha lodged a report on 3.7.2012 alleging that she was friend of applicant and on 14.2.2009, the applicant had taken her to his house to meet his mother. When they reached to the house of the applicant, it was locked. The applicant told the prosecutrix that his mother might have gone to the house of neighbouRs.she will come soon, thereafter, applicant opened the lock from a key, which he was having, thereafter applicant served some sweets and snacks to prosecu...
Lalman Vs. Mohanlal Chaudhary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
W.P.No.13992/2012 1/5/2013: Shri K.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri D.P.Patel, learned counsel for the respondents. Challenging an order dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Maihar, District Satna in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.02/2012 in the matter of interfering with an injunction granted by the Trial Court in a proceeding held under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for permanent injunction with regard to the disputed land situated in KhaSr.No.69/1 area 5 Beegha, eight Vishwa (1.29 hectare) situated in village Dharampura, Tahsil Maihar, District Satna. Based on the revenue entries made and finding the plaintiff to be in possession, injunction has been granted by the Trial Court. However, the said injunction has been interfered with by the Appellate Court merely on the ground that even though in the revenue record certain entries with regard to the posse...
Jagdamba Machhuwa Sahakari Samiti Maharajganj Vs. the State of Madhya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
W.P.No.4284/2013 01/05/2013 Shri K.C.Khildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that under similar circumstances in W.P.No.4285/2013, an application for vacating stay has already been dismissed on 12.4.2013, no case is made out for vacating stay in the present case also. I.A.No.5114/2013 stands rejected. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to use fishing right in the tank in question, subject to final decision of this writ petition. Petitioner shall keep an account of the earnings made by him and submit a report to this Court every month. List along with W.P.No.4284/2013 for analogous hearing. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Uttam Lodhi Vs. Smt. Girja Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Writ Petition No ::7052. / 2013 Uttam Lodhi and another versus Smt. Girji Bai and others 01.05.2013. Shri Pradeep Naveriya for the petitioneRs.Challenging an order passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.25-A/2004, staying proceedings of the suit mainly on the ground that certain proceedings under the MP Samaaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhoomi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Ke Parijat Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam of 1976) is pending in the High Court, petitioners have filed this writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the records, it is clear that with regard to the same property proceedings are pending in a writ petition before this Court under the Adhiniyam of 1976, and in view of the same taking note of the requirement of sections 6, 7 and 14 of the said Adhiniyam and holding that W.P.No.13356/2011 in the matter is pending, the law laid ...
Mahendra Vs. Narendra Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Review Petition No.313 / 2013 ( Mahendra & others ..Vs.Narendra Kumar & another ) 01-05-2013 Heard Shri Pradeep Navriya, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the appellants, after the decision of the second appeal, have come to knot that the landlord has taken up proceedings in respect of another premises in the city of Tikamgarh for eviction and in such circumstances the judgment and decree dated 15-3-2013 passed in Second Appeal No.223/2013 needs to be reviewed. It is settled law that a review is permissible only in case of glaring and apparent mistake which is evident from the face of the record of the case itself and is not permissible for re-hearing of the case or re-appreciation of the facts. In the present case there is no ground to review the judgment and decree dated 15-3-2013 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.223/2013 as there is no apparent mistake evident from the face of the ...
Praveen Kumar Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-2013
Writ Petition No ::2117. / 2013 Praveen Kumar Rai versus State of MP and others 01.05.2013. Shri Wakeel Khan for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Shri Ashok Sinha for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging erection of electric tower in accordance to the provisions of section 10 read with section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1985).It is the case of the petitioner that without following the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act and without payment of compensation, action is taken. If that be so, petitioner has to take recouRs.to the remedy available under section 10 read with sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1985, and approach the statutory authority, which is authorized to deal with the matter. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the remedy available, as indicated hereinabove, this writ petition stands disposed of. Certified...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »