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.
Narendra Kirar Vs. Through Pro. Tarachand Sahu S/o Shri Ram Prasad Sah ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
M.Cr.C.No.934/2014 M.Cr.C.No.934/2014 3.2.2014 Shri Narendra Nikhare, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 5.9.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Bareli, District Raisen in R.T.No.345/2010, whereby the application of the applicant relating to calling of some witnesses was disallowed. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in criminal revision No.55/2013, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the applicant purchased a tractor from the complainant and therefore, a cheque of Rs.3,98,000/- was issued, which was dishonoured. The complaint was filed. At present, the applicant has moved an application that the tractor was taken by the brother of the complainant and therefore, two witnesses may be examined for that purpose. The application was dismissed by the trial Court and the revision filed b...
Smt. Kalawati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
W.A.No.1130/2012 03.02.2014 Shri R.S.Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vivek Agarwal, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents 1 and 4/State. Shri Vivek Rusia, Advocate for the respondents 2 and 3. Heard counsel for the parties on I.A.No.15421/2012, which is an application for condonation of delay. Delay is around 230 days. Although the explanation offered in the delay application is vague, in the interest of justice, the application is allowed. Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the decision of learned single Judge dated 29.11.2011 passed in W.P.No.15363/2005 whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed summarily on the basis of preliminary objection taken by the respondents about its maintainability in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned single Judge has adverted to the decision of the Apex Court and has found that in view of the factual position, which will have to be established by the writ petitioner on...
Ku. Rubi Khan Vs. Police Station Dehat the State of Madhya Pradesh Jud ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
M.Cr.C.No.1021 of 2014 03.02.2014 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned PL for respondent-State. Heard. On behalf of the applicant, Ku. Rubi Khan, this petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail as she is in custody since 23.10.2013 in connection of Crime No.46/13, registered against her at Police Station Dehat District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 323, 408 of IPC. The applicant's counsel after taking me through the rejection order, petition and by referring the copy of the charge sheet from his file argued that the applicant by fabricating false story has been implicated in the matter. In continuation he said that the charge sheet has already been filed and according to it, the entire subject matter of the alleged breach of trust has been recovered by the Police as alleged at the instance of the applicant and other Co.accused and the case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist...
Mahadev Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
M.Cr.C.No.148 of 2014 03.02.2014 Shri R.S.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned PL for respondent-State. Heard. On behalf of the applicants, this petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail as they are in custody since 20.12.2013 in connection of Crime No.789/13, registered against them and other co - accused at Police Station Multai, District Betul for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and Section 34 of IPC so also Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicants' counsel after taking me through the impugned order as well as other papers available on record by referring Annexure A-2 said that according to rashan card of co-accused Lalit, he and his wife were residing separately from the family of the applicants. By referring Annexure A-2, he said that according to this separate rashan card, the applicants were residing separately as such identify of both the families were independent and in such premise...
Additional Secretary Officer Incharge of the Case Executive Engineer M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
1 W.P.No.1193/2014 Writ Petition No.1193/2014 03.02.2014 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.2. The question which falls for determination is whether Collector, Respondent No.2, was justified in allowing the claim of respondent No.1 for relief under Public Liability Insurance Act (No.6 of 1991) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1991).in lieu of death of Ox, who died due to electrocution. Uncontroverted facts are that Tehsildar, Mohangarh through Sub-Divisional Officer, Jatara District Tikamgarh furnished a report that respondent No.1 lost his Ox having come in contact with live 11 KV wire which fell on it. This fact was ascertained by lineman. Collector, Tikamgarh on receiving such report drew a proceedings under 1991 Act, wherein, despite of notice, the petitioner herein remained absent. The Collector on a finding that the death of Ox was due to fall of 11 KV live line, awarded compensation of Rs.6...
Commissioner Sales Tax, M.P. Vs. M/s Gajanand Oil Mill, Khargone Judge ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
S.T.R.No :: 55 / 1999 Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP versus M/s Gajanan Oil Mill, Khargone 03.02.2014. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Notice to the respondent has not been served. The Reference was made in the year 1999 and the order impugned based on which the Reference is made has been passed by the Board of Revenue, on 10.10.1995. Even though the Reference is pending since 1999, till date even notice to the respondent is not served and the whereabouts of the respondent is also not available. Repeated opportunities granted to the State Government has not resulted in getting the notice served on the respondent. This is a Reference received from Revenue under section 44 of the MP General Sales Tax Act, 1958, whereby the following question has been referred for consideration: Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of Notification No.A-5-11- 78(23)ST-V dated 8.10.78. The Tribunal was justified to hold t...
M/s Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Ju ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
M/S.Michigan Rubber versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.15126 / 2013, Writ Petition No.15123 / 2013, Writ Petition No.15125 / 2013, Writ Petition No.15127 / 2013, and Writ Petition No.2622 / 2013, 3.2.2014. Shri Shekar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. As common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases they are being decided by this common order. Challenging the interlocutory proceedings having being held by the Assessing Authority in accordance to provisions of the M.P.Commercial Tax Act, 2002 petitioner has filed this writ petition. It seems that in the year 2006, the department of Custom and Central Excise carried out a search in petitioner's premises. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and carried out manufacturing of Tyres and Tubes and various other activities. It seems that after search and seizure was done the matter was reported by the Central Excise Dep...
Devkinandan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
Cr.R.No.379/2012 3.2.2014 Shri P.S.Tomar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No.338/2011 whereby the conviction of the applicant for offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C is maintained but, sentence is reduced to a sentence of fine of Rs.600/- only. The prosecution's case in short is that the applicant assaulted the victim Imrat Singh on 30.1.2008 at Civil Line, Sagar. The victim lodged an FIR Ex.P/1 on the same day. He was referred for his medico legal examination. Dr.A.K. Kastwar (PW4) had examined the victim and gave his report Ex.P/2. He found an abrasion on his right ankle joint. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. The applicant abjured his guilt. No defence evidence was adduced. The trial Court after considering the pros...
Doulat Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
1 W.P.21324/2013 Writ Petition No.21324/2013 03.02.2014 Shri L.C.Chourasiya, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State of Madhya Pradesh on advance notice. Heard on admission. Order dated 16.03.2012 passed by Additional Collector, Sagar and order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar is being assailed vide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These orders emanates from the proceedings under Section 89 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of 1959') before Tehsildar Khurai brought by respondent No.2 in respect of land bearing KhaSr.No.66/1 Patwari Circle 38 admeasuring 2.49 Hectare and KhaSr.no.2/1 area 0.10 Hectare on the plea that in the map prepared after settlement less land has been under KhaSr.No.66/1; whereas, correspondingly more land is being shown in the adjacent KhaSr.No.71 belonging to the petitioner wherein Tehsildar b...
Ghanaram Vs. Jamvati Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Y ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-2014
Second Appeal No.920/2013. 3.2.2014. Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for appellant. Heard on admission. Perused the record. This is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2013 passed by III Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in Regular Civil Appeal No.123-A/2011; whereby, while dismissing the same, judgment and decree dated 30.6.2010 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Jatara District Tikamgarh in Civil Suit No.73-A/2009 has been upheld. Dispute pertains to 1/6th share of the land bearing KhaSr.No.78, 79, 175, 191, 192, 210, 211 and 320 situated at Village Khumanganj Tahsil Palera District Tikamgarh. Except defendant no.1 Jamvanti, all otheRs.the plaintiffs and defendants, are legal heirs of Premlal Kurmi whereas the defendant no.1 is the wife of defendant no.3 in whose favour the widow of Late Premlal Kurmi had executed a sale-deed dated 23.7.2009 in respect of suit property. The suit was for declaration that the sale deed dated 23.7.2009 is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›