Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
1 W.P.No.4182/2013, W.P.No.7860/2009, W.P.No.14378/2009, W.P.No.3616/2010, W.P.No.6439/2010,W.P.No.1886/2012, W.P.No.15740/2012, W.P.No.15840/2012 and W.P.No.1913/2013. 29/08/2013 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocates with Shri Aditya Adhikari, Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocates for petitioners in W.P.Nos.4182/2013, 14378/2009 & 6439/2010. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Prem Francis, Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocates for petitioners in W.P.Nos.7860/2009, 1886/2012 & 1913/2013. Shri M.S.Jaiswal, Shri R.S.Jaiswal, Senior Advocates with Shri K.K.Gautam, Advocate for petitioners in W.P.Nos.3616/2010, 15740/2012 & 15840/2012. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. The controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical. In all cases there are ad-interim writs in operation and the State has filed applications seeking vacation of ad-interim writs in operation on the ground that the order passed by this Court dated 02/11/2004 has not bee...
Nandkishore Sahu Vs. Ram Kishore Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
M.A.No.2213/2013. 29/8/2013. Shri Sanjay Seth, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rajnish Pandey, Advocate for the respondents / caveator. Case is listed for admission and hearing on stay application. Respondents are represented by their counsel and the appeal is preferred challenging rejection of the application filed under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, therefore, looking to the nature of the case, the appeal is heard finally. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 2.7.2013 passed in civil suit No.42-A/13 by learned Additional District Judge, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad (MP).The appellant / plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction on the ground that he has purchased suit property bearing a house No.8 Miyal 10 Chasma admeasuring 70 feet east - west and 22 feet north- south, total area 1540 Sq. feet. The defendants are raising construction by encroaching upon the property of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the app...
The State of M.P. Vs. Shivnarayan @ Tunda and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Cr.A. No.1174/2003 State of M.P...Appellant Vs.1. Shivnarayan alias Tunda, aged 30 years 2. Lakhan S/o Himmat Balahi, aged about 32 years Both R/o Village Kalya Khedi, P.S. Narmada Nagar, District East Nimad, Khandwa ....Respondents For the petitioner : Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate For the respondents: None ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B. D. RATHI ****** JUDGMENT (29.8.2013) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by : B. D. Rathi, J.This appeal has been preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 15.1.2003 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No.138/2002, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.6.2002 at about...
NitIn JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4018/2012 M.Cr.C.No.4018/2012 29.8.2013 Dr.Anuvad Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Shri P.P.Budholiya, counsel for the respondent No.2. The applicants have moved the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.for quashing the FIR and criminal prosecution of the applicants pending before ACJM, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is possible that a divorce took place between the applicant No.1 and his wife. However, it is also possible that the factum of divorce was not known by the wife. If FIR was lodged with delay of one year then, due to that delay, testimony of the complainant cannot be brushed aside because in such a case, both the parties tries that marriage should continue and in such circumstances, lodging of FIR is an action against the continuation of marriage an...
Sur Singh Solanki Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.448/2013 Sur Singh Solanki.Petitioner Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh....Respondent For the petitioner : Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate, with Miss. Namrata Kesharwani, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3402/2012 Sur Singh Solanki and another...Applicants Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh.....Respondent For the applicants : Shri G. S. Ahluwalia with Shri B. K. Upadhyay, Advocates. For the respondent: Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4161/2012 Pratap Singh and others...Applicants Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh..Non-applicant For the applicants : Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, Advocate. For the non-applicant: Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate. Criminal Revision No.449/2013 Bhupendra Singh Markam...Petitioner Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh....Respondent For the petitioner : Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate, with Miss. Namrata Kesharwani, Advoc...
Ram Teerth Shiksha Avam Kalyan Samiti Vs. National Council for Teacher ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
W.P.No.15089/2013 29/8/2013: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondents. Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is directed to seek instructions in the matter and submit their reply by 10th September 2013. In the meanwhile, having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Gwalior in various cases being W.P.No.4560/2013 - Maa Gayatri Abhinav Shiksha Prasar Samiti versus The National Council for Teacher Education & Ors., we are of the considered view that the steps not being initiated by respondents No.1 and 2 in their meeting held on 12th and 13th August, 2013 for calling for recommendation of the State Government again prima facie is contrary to the statutory provisions and the Gwalior Bench in the case of Maa Gayatri Abhinav Shiksha Prasar Samiti (supra) has already taken a decision that such a recommendation is not necessary. In view of the...
The Municipal Council, Malajkhand Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
W.P.No. 3328/2002 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Single Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Writ Petition No.3328/2002 PETITIONER : The Municipal Council Malajkhand Through its Chief Municipal Officer Malajkhand, District Balaghat (MP) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 The State of Madhya Pradesh through the Principal Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) 2. The Collector, Balaghat (MP) 3. The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mohgaon, Through its Secretary, Mohgaon, District Balaghat (MP) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2/State. Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on 29th August, 2013) By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is...
Arvind JaIn @ Arvind Kumar Singhai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4716/2008 M.Cr.C.No.4716/2008 29.8.2013 Shri Rajeev Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has moved a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.to quash the proceedings of criminal case, which was registered at crime No.7/2008 at Police Station Khimlasa, District Sagar. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, 62 calves were given to the applicant on Supurdginama by the Court. Thereafter, a notice was issued to produce those calves on a particular date. Thereafter, the applicant could not produce those calves and ultimately, those calves were recovered by a seizure memo dated 24.1.2008 and a case under section 406 of IPC was registered against the applicant. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned counsel for the applicant took a plea that notice of demand was not served to the applicant. However, n...
Shashikant Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
Criminal Revision No.856/2009 29.08.2013 Shri L.N.Singh, Sr.Advocate with Shri L. Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent-State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicants have moved the present revision against the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rewa whereby it is directed that Dr. S.K.Shukla, Dr. S.K.Pathak, Contable Gulsher Ahmed, S.S.Pawar and Vidhya Tiwari may again be called for their examination as a prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. The brief facts of the case are that the trial of the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323/34 (three counts) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was pending before the Special Court, Rewa at Special Case No.36/2007. The entire prosecution evidence was over and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties finally the case was fixed for judgment on 29.4.2009. Af...
Onkar Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10680/2012 M.Cr.C.No.10680/2012 29.8.2013 Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Aseem Dixit, counsel for the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 and her husband are present in person. They are duly identified by their counsel. Their presence is marked. Heard them at length. It appears that no compromise took place between the parties of any nature. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants prays to withdraw the petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Prayer is allowed. Petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.filed by the petitioners Onkar Prasad, Daymanti Kaushik, Balmukund Kaushik, Archana Kaushik and Dr.Pramod Kaushik is hereby dismissed being withdrawn. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »