Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Shyam Babu Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2782/1999 Shyam Babu Shukla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Abhinav Dubey, counsel for the appellant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on 17th day of September, 2013) Vide judgment dated 25.5.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Jabalpur in S.T. No.648/99, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced with three years' R.I. with fine of `1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for two months' was directed. Being aggrieved with the aforesa...
Raisingh Tanwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1713/2011 Raisingh Tanwar VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.1866/2011 Kailash Kirar VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ramesh Tamrakar,counsel for the appellant Raisingh Tanwar. Shri P.D.Gupta, counsel for the appellant Kailash Kirar. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 17th day of September, 2013) Since both the appeals are related with the common judgment dated 28.7.2011, therefore, they are hereby decided by this common judgment.2. The appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under section 8/21 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'NDPS Act') vide judgment dated 28.7.2011 in -:- 2 -:- ...
Smt.Shipra Das and ors. Vs. Rajeev Manohar Bendra and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3574/2005 17.9.2013 None for the applicants. None for the respondent No.1. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. None appeared for the applicants on 10.9.2013 and none appeared for the applicants even on today. It appears that the learned counsel for the applicants does not want to prosecute present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C.Consequently, the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.filed by the applicants Smt.Shipradas, S.R.Das, B.C.Lodh and Uday Kumar Mukharjee is hereby dismissed in want of prosecution. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and to proceed with the case. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra...
M/S S. Singh and Company Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
W.P.No.11147/2013 M/s S.Singh versus State of MP & ORS.17/09/2013 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents/State. Challenging the order dated 3.6.2013 passed by the Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Sagar encashing the petitioner's TDR to the tune of `26,25,000/- deposited towards performance guarantee and it's forfeiture and an order dated 4.7.2013 passed by the same authority terminating the contract entered into between the parties, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner claims to be a registered contractor for various departments in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A Notice inviting tender was floated by Respondent No.1 Secretary, Government of M.P.in the Water Resources Department for construction of a canal valued at `4,99,87,000/-. The tender documents and other material are available on record. Be it as it may be, the work was...
Pushpendra Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
1 W.P No.8134 o17. 9.2013 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, PL for respondents/ State. Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner, a fair price shop holder, has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.13 passed by respondent No.2 Collector in Case No.48/B-121/2012-13 whereby security amount of the petitioner with respect of the fair price shop has been forfeited under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and the provisions of Public Distribution System (control) Order, 2009 and the seized food substance from his fair price shop has also been directed to be placed on auction and deposit the sale proceed in the government treasury.2. Initially the case was argued at length for admission and allowing this petition but in view of the provision of section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act in which appeal is provided against the impugned order, instead to argue further, pe...
Rajnarayan Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
Writ Petition No.15530/2013 (O) 17.09.2013 Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Adv for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- 1. to issue appropriate writ and direct to the respondents No.2 to pay compensation and also allot land under rehabilitation plan to the petitioners separately in the interest of justice, 2. to call entire record, 3. Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper on the basis of above mentioned facts and grounds. After making arguments on merits on admission, I am apprised by the petitioneRs.counsel that their representation, (Ann. P-3) to resolve the dispute raised in this petition is still pending in the office of the authority of respondent no.2, Collector, Rewa and prayed that in any case such authority be directed to consider and ...
Kailash Kirar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.1713/2011 Raisingh Tanwar VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.1866/2011 Kailash Kirar VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ramesh Tamrakar,counsel for the appellant Raisingh Tanwar. Shri P.D.Gupta, counsel for the appellant Kailash Kirar. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 17th day of September, 2013) Since both the appeals are related with the common judgment dated 28.7.2011, therefore, they are hereby decided by this common judgment.2. The appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under section 8/21 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'NDPS Act') vide judgment dated 28.7.2011 in -:- 2 -:- ...
Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
W.A.No.693/2013 17.09.2013 Shri D.K.Dixit, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents. On 16.09.2013 at the request of the appellant, we have directed learned counsel for the State to seek instructions from the State about any possibility of posting of the appellant at any other place, except Jabalpur as Additional Superintendent of Police, which is his substantive post. For ready reference we quote the order dated 16.09.2013, which reads as under:- "It is submitted by Shri Dixit that appellant has been transferred from the post of Addl. Supdt. of Police, Jabalpur to the post of Deputy Commandant, 6th Battalion, Jabalpur which is an inferior post. Appellant is ready to join at any place on the post of Addl. Supdt. of Police, but he may not be compelled to work as Deputy Commandant even at Jabalpur. Appellant is ready to join on the same post anywhere in the State of M.P.It is submitted by Shri Dixit that the appellant is present in the Co...
Shri Harishchandra Tantuwai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
1 W. P. No.11024/12 (O). 17.9.2013. Shri Hemant Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. D. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 7. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.8. In view of listing the case IA No.9418/11 and IA No.12982/12, petitioner's applications for early hearing do not require any further consideration, hence the same is hereby disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. Having heard on the question of admission, this petition is admitted for hearing. The counsel of the respondents have taken notice of this admission, hence no further notices are required. With the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. The order is dictated in the open Court. ORDER 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2012, passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II Raisen in Regular Civil Suit No.9-A/2011, whereby his application filed under Order 6 Rule ...
Manoj Kumar Kachhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
W.P.No.14807/2013 (M.K.Kachhi versus State of MP and otheRs.17.09.2013 Heard Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents/authorities to decide the application filed by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment in place of the death of petitioner's father who died while in service on 13.12.2010. It is submitted that the matter has been processed but has not been decided till date by the authorities and therefore, a direction to decide the same be issued by this court. In view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the case the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition before the authority concerned within 15 days from today, the representation dated 05....
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »