Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
M/s Premier Industries Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
W.P.No.12020/2013 M/s Premier Industries versus State of MP & ORS.W.P.Nos.12020/2013, 20941/2012, 21042/2012 & W.P.No.9709/2013 06/02/2014 Shri H.S.Shrivastava, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State. As common question of law is involved in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order and for the sake of convenience, the documents and pleadings filed in W.P.No.12020/2013 is being referred to in this order. Petitioners in all these cases are registered dealers and are carrying out various activities as are indicated. Each of the petitioneRs.Industry has been granted exemption under Notification No.A-3-24-94-ST-V (108) dated 6 th of October, 1994 under the State Act and as well as Central Sales Tax. The exemption granted to the petitioners in each of the cases is indicated in the petition and the same is not in dispute. Original...
Harigopal Katiya Vs. Jagdish Prasad Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri J ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
Cr.A.No.2288/2012 Criminal Appeal No.2288/2012 6.2.2014 Shri Aseem Dixit, counsel for the appellant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.5. Heard on admission. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.against the judgment dated 14.9.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hoshangabad in Special case No.65/2011, whereby the respondents No.1 to 4 were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 323 or 323 read with Section 34, 341, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'Special Act').The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 4.2.2011, at about 7 a.m.in the morning, at village Chargaon, the victim Harigopal (P.W.1) was going to answer his call of nature. When he was on the way, in front of house of the respondent Jagdish, the respondents assaulted him by slaps. They scuffled with the ...
M/s Hanuman Chromo Coates Ltd Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgemen ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
W.P.No.9709/2013 M/s Hanuman Chromo Coates LTD.versus State of MP & ORS.W.P.Nos.12020/2013, 20941/2012, 21042/2012 & W.P.No.9709/2013 06/02/2014 Shri H.S.Shrivastava, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State. As common question of law is involved in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order and for the sake of convenience, the documents and pleadings filed in W.P.No.12020/2013 is being referred to in this order. Petitioners in all these cases are registered dealers and are carrying out various activities as are indicated. Each of the petitioneRs.Industry has been granted exemption under Notification No.A-3-11-84(76+')-ST-V and A-3-11-86(78).ST-V dated 16 th of October, 1986 under the State Act and as well as Central Sales Tax. The exemption granted to the petitioners in each of the cases is indicated in the petition and the sa...
M/s Nirmala Minerals Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Mineral Resource ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
W.P.No.20448/2012 M/s Nirmala Minerals versus State of MP & ORS.06/02/2014 Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State. Petitioner has been assessed for payment of tax under the M.P.Gramin Avsanrachana Tatha Sadak Vikas Adhiniyam, 2005. An order of assessment Annexure-P4 has been passed on 11.10.2012 and challenging the aforesaid assessment made, this writ petition has been filed. Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthi, learned counsel argues that the assessment has been done without giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit their return and documents in accordance with the statutory Form-D and Rule 10(1) of the Rules 2005 and by referring to the note appended to the impugned order Annexure-P4 dated 11.10.2012, he argues that the return in Form-D and Rule-10(1) has now been submitted and, therefore, the matter be remanded back in the light of the aforesaid for reconsideration by the Asssessing Officer. Respond...
Smt.Premlata Vs. Roshanlal Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
1 MCC No.2492 / 2008. 6/2/2014. Shri B.R.Vijaywar, Advocate for the applicant / appellant. Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate for the respondent no.3. M.A.No.3585/05 was filed by the appellant claiming compensation arising out of the death of her child. On 21.6.2007 M.A.No.3585/05 was dismissed for want of prosecution, therefore, seeking restoration of the said case, MCC No.1683/07 was allowed by a Division Bench of this court on 9.7.2007 and M.A.bearing No.3585/05 was directed to be restored subject to payment of deposit of cost of Rs.100/- within seven days with the High Court Legal Service Committee. It seems that the counsel who was representing the appellant did not comply with this order for payment of Rs.100/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee, as a result, the miscellaneous appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not restored. It is said that the counsel who was earlier representing the appellant did not inform the appellant and therefore, it is only when she came...
Rahul Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
CRR No.1815/2012 Criminal Revision No.1815/2012 6.2.2014 Shri Sunil Mishra, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A.for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur in Special case No.50/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'Special Act') were framed against the applicants alongwith other charges. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 24.1.2012, a quarrel took place between the applicants and the deceased Neha Sonkar. The applicants assaulted the deceased Neha and her brother Pankaj by kicks and fists and also threatened her that she would be killed. Thereafter, Neha committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon her and set her on fire. After cons...
Shivraj Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
Criminal Appeal No.684/2013 6/02/2014 Shri A.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Smt. Pratibha Mishra, PL for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.157/13, second application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant no.2 Rampal. The fiRs.application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 5/07/2013 with liberty to repeat the same after six months. Appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under section 304 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years & fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this second application has been filed after a lapse of six months. Appellant no.2 has already suffered the jail sentence of about four yeaRs.The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally, hence he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant no.2. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. On due consideration of the facts and contentions raised by le...
Shayam Patel Vs. Smt Reena Patel Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Just ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
Shayam Patel versus Smt. Reena Patel FiRs.Appeal No.413 / 2010 and FiRs.Appeal No.412 / 2010 6.2.2014 Appellant husband Shri Shayam Patel is present along with his counsel Shri Sajidullah Khan, Advocate. Respondent wife Smt. Reena Patel is also present along with her counsel Shri Sunil Gupta, Advocate. F.A.No.413/2010 has been filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 18.3.2010 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Jabalpur allowing an application for dissolution of marriage filed by respondent wife Smt. Reena Patel. Similarly F.A.No.412/2010 is filed by Shri Shyam Patel challenging the order passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Jabalpur dismissing his application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of both these appeal, parties have negotiated with each other and it is reported that they have entered into an agreement. The respondent wife Smt. Reena Patel has again marrie...
Umesh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
W.A.No.1076/2013 06.02.2014 Shri Atul Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vivek Agarwal, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Heard counsel for the parties. The authority having processed the proposal submitted by the appellant keeping in mind the policy expounded by the State Government and the Central Government, as is noted in the communication dated 26th March, 2011 (Annexure P-9) addressed to all the Commissioners within the State of M.P., no fault can be found with the conclusion reached by the said authority. The relevant portion of the said policy document, reads thus:- ii) xSj&fuf"k) cksj (,uihch) gfFk;kjksa ds fy;s 'kL= ykblsal iznku fd;k tkuk& 2- xSj&fuf"k) cksj (,uihch) gfFk;kjksa ds fy;s uohu 'kL= ykblsal iznk; dh Lohd`fr Hkkjr ljdkj ds funsZ'k ds vuq:i ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh }kjk dh tk;sxhA21 jkT; 'kklu }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd dqN Js.kh ds O;fDr;ksa dks].in ,oa dk;Z dh izd`fr ds dkj.k lkekU; [krjk mRiUu gkSr.gS].bldks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s fuEu nf'kZr J...
Smt. Shivraj Singh Vs. Satendra Singh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
1 W.P.22039/2012 Writ Petition No.22039/2012 06.02.2014 Shri Kamal Singh Baghel, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondents No.1,3,6,7,9 & 10(f).The matter is finally heard with consent of learned counsel for the parties. Order dated 29.10.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.7-A/2007 by the fiRs.Civil Judge Class-I, Sidhi is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; whereby, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment in the plaint has been rejected. Suit by the petitioners/plaintiffs is for declaration of adoption deed date 30.06.1994 and Will dated 27.07.1994 executed by Udayraj Singh in favour of defendant No.1 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for declaration of 3/4th share over the suit property. After closure of plaintiffs evidence and at the stage when the defendants were to lead evidence, plaintiffs filed an application for amendme...