Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 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.
Kirti MartIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
M.Cr.C.No.16017 of 2013 24.01.2014 Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Umesh Pandey, learned Govt. Adv.for respondent-State. Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the objector- prosecutrix, Versha Ahirwar. Earlier on taking up the matter for hearing at early hours of the day Shri Lalit Pandey, Adv.appeared on behalf of the applicant and prayed to keep this matter as pass over saying that the arguing counsel, Shri Sharad Verma is busy before some other Bench of this court, on which it was kept as pass over. Pursuant to it, it is place before me after lunch session. Shri Sharad Verma, Adv.submits that applicant has taken away the brief from his office day before yesterday after obtaining NOC to engage other counsel and in such premises, he is not in a position to make the submission on merits of this petition. Such submission of Shri Verma is taken on record. Pursuant to aforesaid, Shri Verma is permitted to withdraw from this case. The State's counsel submits that h...
Sachindanand Singh Vs. Uday Kumar Bhardwaj Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
M.Cr.C.No.13339/2011 M.Cr.C.No.13339/2011 23.1.2014 Shri D.K.Melani, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 23.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, District Sidhi in criminal revision No.130/2009 (New No.55/2010).whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/applicant was found barred by limitation and therefore, the respondent was discharged. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the complainant had moved a complaint for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheques given by the respondent were dishonoured. He gave a notice for demand of amount on 18.11.2005. When the notice was served to the respondent, he requested the applicant to give one month's time but, nothing could be done in that one month. Thereafter, the applicant again placed those cheques for payment and again they were dishonoured. Thereafter, he gave a second notice on 18.2.2006 and on the basis ...
Jaihind Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
M.Cr.C.No :: 513 / 2014 Jaihind Yadav and another versus State of MP2401.2014. Shri H.S.Rajput for the applicants. Shri Amit Pandey, PL, for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission for withdrawal of the application so far as it relates to applicant No.1 Jaihind Yadav. Permission granted. The application so far as it relates to applicant No.1 Jaihind Yadav stands dismissed as withdrawn. Heard on the application for grant of anticipatory bail to applicant No.2 Hanumat Yadav. Applicant No.2 Hanumat Yadav apprehends his arrest in Crime No.178/2013 registered at P.S.Lishora, District Tikamgarh for offence under sections 294, 307, 336, 506 r/w 34, of the IPC. From the documents available on record, it is seen that co-accused Vikas Rai, in M.Cr.C.No.14166/2013, has been granted bail by this Court under section 438 CrPC. On a perusal of order-dated 31.10.2013, it is seen that Co.accused Jaihind Yadav is said to have fired upon the victim to kill him. There is nothing aga...
Bharat Bidi Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
W.P.No.14683/2010 24.01.2014 Shri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Advocate for the State. It is submitted by the parties that the controveRs.involved in this case has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16296/2010 on 09.04.2012, by an order which reads thus:- "Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the levy of State Sales Tax on auction sale of Tendu Leaves by the respondent Federation on the ground that the transaction is an intra State sale and, therefore, cannot be subjected to tax under the State Act in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').It is, however, fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that similar and identical issues decided by this Court, travelled to the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Zunaid Enterprises & Others versus State of M.P.and othe...
Bengal Bidi Factory Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
W.P.No.14689/2010 24.01.2014 Shri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Advocate for the State. It is submitted by the parties that the controveRs.involved in this case has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16296/2010 on 09.04.2012, by an order which reads thus:- "Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the levy of State Sales Tax on auction sale of Tendu Leaves by the respondent Federation on the ground that the transaction is an intra State sale and, therefore, cannot be subjected to tax under the State Act in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').It is, however, fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that similar and identical issues decided by this Court, travelled to the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Zunaid Enterprises & Others versus State of M.P.and othe...
Pradeep Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
M.Cr.C.No.12481/2013 M.Cr.C.No.12481/2013 24.1.2014 Shri S.P.Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard on admission. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.against the order dated 16.4.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi in an unregistered application, whereby the application of the applicant under section 457 of the Cr.P.C.was dismissed. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 3.5.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in criminal revision No.45/2013, where by the revision was also dismissed. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, forest officials seized a vehicle MP18-H-1075 belonging to the petitioner because it was used in illegal transportation of sand from the reserve forest. Initially, it was seized according to the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act but, thereafter, it was also shown to be seized under Forest Act. T...
Sheikh Farid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
M.Cr.C.No.367/14. 24.01.2014 Shri K.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Satosh Yadav, learned P.L.for the State/respondent. Heard. On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.for grant of bail to the applicant as he is in custody since 20.12.2013, in connection of Crime No.345/13, registered at Police Station Lalbag, District Burhanpur for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C.Applicants counsel after taking me through the papers of the charge-sheet argued that according to the evidence placed with the charge-sheet, the alleged incident was happened on spur of a moment. According to which, some altercation had taken place between the applicant and the deceased with respect of their child, who had gone out-side and consequently the deceased by pouring kerosene on herself, had set fire and resultantly sustained the burn injuries, the applicant had tried to save her in which he also sustained the burn injuries. On taking her to hospita...
Malti Bai Vs. Smt. Tara Bai Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice R ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
1 M.A.No.1502/2012. 24/01/2014 Shri Prabhakar Singh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Greeshm Jain, counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 3. Shri Sharod Punj, counsel for respondent no. 4. In view of the order passed by this Court on 06/01/2014, the instant appeal is taken up for consideration. Admittedly, the appellant had preferred an application before the FiRs. Civil Judge, ClassI, Chhindwara for grant of succession certificate vide case No. 31/2002, the same was dismissed on 25/09/2007. Aggrieved thereby an appeal No. 1/2010 was preferred before the District Judge under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act and the said appeal was also dismissed on 10/02/2010. The appellant thereafter instituted a Civil Suit No. 2B/2011 seeking declaration that he be declared successor of one Late Tularam Gauli, the suit has been dismis...
Anand Kumar Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Anand Kumar Tiwari versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.1290 / 2014 24.1.2014 Shri Matloob Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Petitioner is challenging an action of the respondents in denying the benefit of second kramonnati and proposing to make recovery of benefit already granted after retirement from service, the question involved in this petition already decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna W/o. Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.in W.P.No.6773/06, decided on 26/04/2007, and subsequently followed by this Court in series of cases, one such order being passed in W.P.No.5756/08(s).Shri R.C.Chaurasiya & Others versus State of M.P.& OtheRs.decided on 26/05/2008. In the case of Smt. Prerna (Supra) the directions given is as under : 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and condit...
Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Vinod Kumar Sharma versus State of M.P.M.Cr.C.No.17505 / 2013 24.1.2014 Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. This is an application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.seeking bail. Applicant has been arrested in Crime No.10/2013, registered at Police Station STF Bhopal for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. Applicant claims to be a Teacher on the ground of having got issued forged marksheet for the purpose of getting employment to certain students and for getting certain students passed in the M.P.Rajya Open School in the year 2010, applicant has been arrested. Records indicate that for the same offence Rajeshwar Chandra Tripathi in M.Cr.C.No.16394/2013 and one Rajkumar Bahe in M.Cr.C.No.17354/2013 have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The case of applicant and that of Shri Tripathi and Shri Bahe are identical in nature and I See no ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »