Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Shikahr Sales Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 VATA No.24/2012 17.7.2013 Shri K.K.Dubey, Counsel for appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, GA for respondent. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether 'Agarbatti', during the period 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007, was taxable under Entry @ 2% under Entry No.58, Schedule II of the Entry Tax Act or was tax free under Entry No.1 of Schedule I of the Entry Tax Act, read with Entry No.45 of Schedule I of the VAT Act?.. Notice on behalf of respondent is accepted by Shri Tiwari. Appellant to serve copy of memo of appeal alongwith necessary documents to Shri Tiwari within three working days against acknowledgement . Be listed for hearing in the month of October, 2013. I.A.No.12392/2012 for stay Considering the small amount of tax Rs.4,000/-, we direct the appellant to deposit the said amount with the respondent which shall be subject to decision of this appeal. However, if this appeal is allowed, the appellant shall also be entitled for a reasonable interest on the ...
Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1...W.A.No.644 of 2013 Santosh Kumar Singh State of M.P.& otheRs.17.07.2013 Shri Ram Bihari Goutam, Counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against an order dated 1.7.2013 passed in W.P.No.10981 of 2013 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against his transfer order, transferring the appellant from STC Division Satna to O&M Division, Amarpatan was dismissed. However, a liberty was granted to the appellant to submit a representation for the ventilation of the grievances on medical ground. This order has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that appellant has suffered frequent transfers and has been victimized by the present transfer order. From the perusal of the ordeRs.we find that all the orders except order Annexure P-1 relates to posting of the appellant from one place to another place at Satna only. He was not sent out of Satna since last near about three years and for the fiRs.time by order dated 10.6.2013, he has been transferred from Satna to Am...
BaIn Singh Tongar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 W.P No.13146 o17. 7.2013 Shri Dipak Awasthy, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Umesh Pandey, GA for respondent No.1 and 2/ State. Shri Pankaj Dubey, standing counsel for the respondent No.3/ EOW. The petitioner/ accused has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on dated 13.8.2012 for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for the following reliefs :- (a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of sanction dated 31.7.12 (Annx.P-1) issued by the Secretary, Law & Legislative Department, Govt. of M.P.Bhopal. (b) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/ direction for closure of investigation against the petitioner in relation to Crime No.18/03 registered at Police Station State Economic Offence, Bhopal. (c ) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ, directions, order which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) This H...
Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11365/2013 Rajesh Kumar Mishra & Ano. vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 17.07.2013 Heard Shri Harish Agnihotri learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the selection process and the manner of selection undertaken by the respondents while making appointment on the post of contractual meter readers under the Meter Readers Scheme 2012. It is submitted that the petitioners who were qualified have been left out while the other unqualified persons have been selected. It is, however, observed that the petitioners have filed representation before the respondent no.3, Annexure P-10, for mitigation of their grievance which is pending decision. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioners file a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition before the respondent no.3 within fifteen days f...
Gram Panchayat Padua Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 W.P.No.19318/2012 17.7.2013 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Kunal Thakre, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.AG for State of M.P.Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Himanshu Mishra, Counsel for respondent No.5. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has brought to our notice the order dated 28.6.2013 passed by the Apex Court by which an SLP preferred against the order dated 25.4.2013 passed in this case by this Court was allowed and the amendment application filed by the petitioner was allowed in toto. In view of aforesaid, we direct the petitioner to incorporate amendment as was prayed by I.A.No.5832/2012 within a period of 3 working days from today. Additional reply, if any, be filed by the respondents within 3 days. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that ad interim writ issued earlier may be continued. Aforesaid prayer is opposed by the respondent no.5. It is also submitted by the responden...
Ramsushil Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
M.Cr.C.No.7662/2013 17.07.2013 Shri J.N.Tripathi, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicants have challenged the FIR lodged against them vide Crime No.104/2013. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that if the applicants were acquitted vide judgment dated 26.4.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satna in ST No.7/2011 for the incident dated 20.11.2010, then the second FIR can be lodged if repeated crime has been done by the applicants, and therefore if such type of FIR was lodged by the complainant in the past, then it makes no difference. It is apparent that Smt. Kaushalya Sharma has lodged the FIR against the applicants that they kidnapped her daughter. The defence of the applicants is that the kidnapped girl is a major one, who is residing with someone with her own and she never kidnapped. In sup...
Smt. Kamla Lodhi Vs. Mukesh Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
R.P.No.508/2013 (Smt. Kamla Lodhi & two ors...Vs..Shri Maniram Patel & ors.) 17-07-2013 Heard Shri Rajneesh Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition for review of the order passed by this Court dated 3-5-2013 in C.R.No.186/2013. It is settled law that this Court is not empowered to rehear the matters in review which is permissible only in case of glaring and apparent mistake which is evident from the face of the record of the case itself, which has not been shown or established in the present petition. In the circumstances, I find no reason to entertain the petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, it is observed that the petitioner/defendant may take up all possible defence in accordance with law before the trial Court. With the aforesaid observations the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct It is settled law...
Jugal Kishore Vaidehi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11364/2013 Jugal Kishore Vaidhehi vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 17.07.2013 Heard Shri Pradeep Naveria learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 20.11.1998 by which he has been placed under suspension while performing duties on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the establishment of the respondents at Jabalpur. It is submitted that the petitioner is under suspension since 1998 on account of the pendency of a criminal trial against him but as the trial is being delayed, the respondent authorities are not considering his reinstatement. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without filing any application for revocation of his suspension or an appeal against the impugned order as provided by the rules. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction...
Smt. Kamleshwari Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.21551/2012 Smt. Kamleshwari Singh vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 17.07.2013 Shri Shailendra Verma learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akash Choudhary learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State. Shri Mrigendra Singh learned counsel for respondent no.6. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, respondent no.2 whereby the stay granted to respondent no.6 in the appeal filed by him has been extended. The petitioner has also assailed order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ramnagar, District Satna wherein he has passed orders in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.19928/2012 and the order passed by the Commissioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.6 has been convicted in two criminal cases and is, therefore, disqualified and not qualified to hold the post of Secretary of the Gram Panchayat....
Nazma Khatoon Vs. M. Shailendram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
Conc. No. 1413 Of 2013 17.7.2013 Shri MaNo. Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. This contempt petition at the instance of respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 16003/2012 is for initiating action against respondents for alleged disobedience of order dated 3.10.2012 passed in W.P. No. 16003/2012. W.P. No. 16003/2012 was decided in following terMs.The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 01.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa in the revision filed by the respondents whereby the Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa has maintained the order of the Collector, Singrouli and has remitted the matter back to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Deosar District Singrouli to decide the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the respondents and all other concerned. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while ...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »