Madhya Pradesh Court August 2009 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.
Rajesh Bahelia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT30
R.C. Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 7-9-1994 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No. 166/1993, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer SI for 15 days.2. The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under:(i) The appellant is a native of Village Teekar Jakira Tola, Govindgarh Distt. Rewa. At the relevant point of time, the prosecutrix (P.W. 4), a 15-year-old daughter of Shyamwati (P.W. 6) was also residing in the same village.(ii) On 15-7-1993, the prosecutrix along with Sunila (P.W. 5) and Butan had gone to nearby Rani Talab for grazing buffaloes. At about 12 noon, when they were playing game with gottis (pebbles) and one Jagvanshi (P.W. 10) was grazing his goats, the appellant came there; caught hold of the prosecutrix's hand and started dragging her towards the ravine. As she and her companions raise...
Santosh Kushwah Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT90
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-4-2009 passed by learned Special Judge appointed under Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'), Gwalior in Special Case No. 6/08 convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 394 of IPC as well as under Section 13 of the Adhiniyam and thereby sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, seven years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- and three years RI respectively, in default of fine, further RI of 50 days with further stipulation that all the sentences shall run concurrently, this appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 31-10-2007 at 8.15 p.m., complainant-Hemant Kumar Joshi along with his brother-in-law Ramkishan and father-in-law Ram Gopal came to Police Station, Dabra and lodged the report that he is a resid...
Sunil @ Sonu Vs. Sarita Chawla (Smt.)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT319
ORDERN.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18-4-2009 passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Cr.A. No. 162/2009, whereby the order dated 12-3-2009 passed by JMFC, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 1911/2009, whereby the application filed by the petitioners regarding maintainability of the proceedings was dismissed, was maintained, the present revision petition has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (No. 43 of 2005) (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'Act'), wherein it was alleged that petitioners are father and son. It was alleged that marriage of respondent took place with one Shankar Chawla. Out of the wedlock respondent delivered three children and two years before Shankar Chawla died. Thereafter respondent fall in love with petitioner No. 1. It was alleged that thereafter the respondent was married to petitioner No. 1 in a temple as p...
Pawan Rana Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: AIR2010MP1; 2009(4)MPHT377
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a reference made to the Full Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court because of difference of opinion in the judgments of two different Division Benches of the High Court on interpretation of Section 86 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993').2. The background facts leading to this reference are that under Section 69 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, the State Government or the Prescribed Authority has the power to appoint Secretary for a Gram Panchayat or group of two or more Gram Panchayats and under Section 70 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, a Gram Panchayat has the power to appoint such other officers and servants as it considers necessary for the efficient discharge of its duties with the previous approval of the Prescribed Authority. The State Government issued a circular dated 12-9-1995 regarding appointment of Panchayat Karmis by the Gram Panchayats and issued another circular dated 27-1-2006 clarifying that in case...
Munshi Singh Vs. Nagar Panchayat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ681MP; 2009(4)MPHT352
ORDERSubhash Samvatsar, J.1. This writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 23-1-2009 and the Division Bench vide its order dated 23-1-2009 has referred this case to Full Bench, as the Division Bench was of the opinion that the question whether once the termination order is struck down on the ground that it is in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act (for short 'the Act') then the Court has to strike on the illegality and direct reinstatement.2. The gist of the question, referred to the Full Bench is whether once the termination order is struck down by holding the same to be violative of Section 25-F of the Act, it is mandatory for the Court to strike on the illegality and direct reinstatement.3. The Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. : AIR 1979 SC 75, has laid down in Paragraph 9 of the judgment that:It is no more open to debate that in the field of industrial...
Jagdish Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ142; 2009(5)MPHT327
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6-3-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, Distt. Bhind, in Sessions Trial No. 243/98 convicting the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer seven years' Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, further SI of three months, this appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 15-5-1997 Ravindra Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the injured') alongwith his brother Satish, Ramswaroop Sharma came in injured condition in the police station alongwith broken licencee mouser gun of Krishna Murari and lodged a report that today in the morning at 10 he was in his field. A canal was dug by the appellant in his field, as a result of which, his brother Satish, Ramswaroop and son Sunil told the appellant and his family members that why the...
Santosh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)MPHT113
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27-1-2009 passed by XV ASJ, Indore in S.T. No. 616/2008 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 of IPC for a period of 4 years' imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, the present appeal has been filed.2. In short case of the prosecution was that on 2-6-2008 the parents of prosecutrix/Durga went on job for earning their livelihood, at that time, prosecutrix/Durga, who was aged 10 years went to the house of Jaya for playing. It was alleged that appellant who happens to be the father of Jaya asked the prosecutrix to sit down as he is providing something for eating. It was alleged that appellant sent his daughter Jaya to market for purchasing some articles. It was alleged that thereafter the appellant tried to rape the prosecutrix. Further case of the prosecution was that upon her shouting the appellant threatened the prosecutrix/Durga for dire consequences. It was alleged that appellant paid a...
Uma Verma and Suresh Kumar Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MPHT430
R.S. Garg, J.1. The appellant Uma Verma and appellant Suresh Kumar have respectively filed Criminal Appeal No. 2177/2000 and Criminal Appeal No. 2699/2000 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24-8-2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 521/1999 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur convicting each of the appellant under Section 302, IPC, sentencing them to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for four months and convicting the appellant Suresh under Section 498-A, IPC sentencing him to undergo RI for two years and pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for four months, the substantive jail sentence to run concurrently, have filed this appeal.2. The prosecution case as it appears from the written report is that deceased Mamta was married with appellant Suresh Kumar on 25-6-1995, since after marriage accused Suresh Kumar was cruelly treating the deceased, he was also demanding money from the dece...
Ram Kishan Dwivedi Vs. Rohni Prasad Tiwari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT38
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. Writ petition has been filed as against the interlocutory order dated 20-3-2006 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Shahdol in Civil Suit No. 9-B/2004 holding the document to be bond and recovery of payment of deficit stamp duty from respondent.2. Petitioner has been asked to make the payment of stamp duty and penalty treating the document as bond, hence the instant writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery in the sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- on the ground that defendant-respondent has obtained sum of Rs. one lac from the petitioner on 23-4-2002. He executed a promissory note to repay the same amount on demand. When the document was tendered in the evidence, application was filed by the defendant under Section 151 of CPC as to admissibility of the document in evidence on the ground that it does not bear stamp duty and penalty.4. The Trial Court has held the document to be a bond not a promissory note and ha...
Sunil Kumar Saxena Vs. Holy Cross Ashram Higher Secondary School and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)MPHT364
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner assailing order dated 25-2-2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2837/08 (S) whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant stood dismissed on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant approached this Court stating that he was appointed as a direct recruit with respondent No. 1 Holy Cross Ashram Higher Secondary School, Datia as a Lecturer (Chemistry) on 1 -2-2005 and since then he was imparting education to the students of Classes X to XII. It is alleged that the respondent school is affiliated to Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and is governed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965. On 4-2-2008, the appellant applied to the respondent No. 1 institution for grant of experience certificate. The respondent institution issued a certificate showing the designation of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »