Madhya Pradesh Court May 2011 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.
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Heard Shri Hitendra Singh, Advocate, on I.A. No. 6528/2011 which is an application filed on behalf of intervener Shri Sai Mandir Samiti, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, for extension of time to shift the temple from the place in question. 2. He states that the management of Shri Sai Mandir Samiti intends to give an undertaking to remove the temple within a reasonable time. He prays for short date to file a written undertaking in this regard. 3. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the management of Shri Sai Mandir Samiti, South Civil Lines, to submit an honest written undertaking on the next date of hearing for shifting the temple. 4. Shri Brian Da’ Silva, learned Senior Advocate, with Smt. Kanak Lata Gaharwar, Advocate, for the Union of India/ respondent nos.13 and 14, states that he has filed an application I.A. No.1793/2011 for vacating of stay order dated 6.7.2009 passed in I....
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Aparna Shrivastava and Others Smt. Ap ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against an order dated 25 th September, 09, passed in Criminal Revision No. 277/09 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior setting aside thereby the order dated 06 th August 09, passed in Criminal Case no. 2480/08 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, permitting the revisionist to file the documents alongwith the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., dated 25 th November 2008 filed in the trial at the stage of defence evidence. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the revisional court be set aside restoring the order passed by the trial Magistrate. (2) The facts, in short, just for the decision of this petition are that on a private criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.1 stating that the accused for want of illegal demand of dowry, caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant, the Magistrate issued the directions for registration of the FIR...
Dr. Ramesh Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
(1) This revision-petition preferred under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 24 th September, 2010 passed in Sessions Case No. 212/09, by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ganj Basoda District Vidisha (M.P.), whereby the learned trial Judge framed the charge against the petitioner for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and transferred the case for trial to the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganj Basoda for trial, in the light of the provisions of Section 228 of I.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. (2) The facts in short relevant for the disposal of the 2 Criminal Revision 1000/10 case are that 02 nd September, 09, Shyam, s/o Kalu Ram Malviya went to the clinic of Dr. Ramesh Gupta at Gandhi Squire, Ganj Basoda for treatment of fever. After examining the patient, Dr. Ramesh Gupta (petitioner herein) administered the drug “Benzyl Penicillin ” in the form of injunction on his right glutea...
Smt. Santosh JaIn and Others Vs. Salim Khan and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against an order dated 07 th September,10 passed in Criminal Revision No. 89/2011, by the Additional Sessions Judge Sironj District Vidisha (M.P.), whereby the revisional court by allowing the revision petition of the respondents, set aside the order dated 27 th March, 10 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sironj M.P. for attachment of agricultural lands with standing crops after appointment of the receiver in order to hand over the attached properties to him in Case No. 57/145/2010 and remanded the matter back with a direction that after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, a fresh order under Section 146 of Cr.P.C. may be passed. (2) The facts in short, just for the decision of the present revision are that petitioners/party no. 1 filed the application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to the effect that disputed a...
Bheekham Singh VishwakarmA. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Perused PUD dated 30/04/11 in which it has been shown that appellants have failed to appear before the trial Court on 23.04.11. Learned counsel for appellants submits that matter may be heard finally today to which learned PL for State has no objection. Heard finally. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.03.99, delivered by the then Special Judge, Raisen in Special Case No.158/96 in which appellants have been 1convicted for alleged offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to R.I.for six months and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine appellants to further undergo R.I. for one month. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the finding of conviction of the appellant but confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. So there is no need to consider the facts of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that out of 13 persons who were tried, these three appellants ha...
Chote at Omkar Tiwari. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Learned counsel for appellant submits that matter may be heard finally today to which learned PL for State has no objection. Heard finally. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.02.07, delivered by the then Addl.Sessions Judge,Umaria in ST No.08/04 in which appellant has been convicted for alleged offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to R.I.for six months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine appellant to further undergo S.I. for one month. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the finding of conviction of the appellant but confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. So there is no need to consider the facts of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is first offender and there is no criminal record against him. The incident is of the year 2002. Therefore, his case may be considered sympathetically. He submits that alleged offence under Se...
Durga Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Perused PUD dated 30/04/11 in which it has been shown that appellants have failed to appear before the trial Court on 23.04.11. Learned counsel for appellants submits that matter may be heard finally today to which learned PL for State has no objection. Heard finally. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.03.99, delivered by the then Special Judge, Raisen in Special Case No.158/96 in which appellants have been 1convicted for alleged offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to R.I.for six months and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine appellants to further undergo R.I. for one month. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the finding of conviction of the appellant but confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. So there is no need to consider the facts of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that out of 13 persons who were tried, these three appellants ha...
Mukesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.2.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No. 12707 of 2010, upholding thereby the order of externment against the petitioner/appellant. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that District Magistrate, Ratlam, vide notice No. 745/2009, dated 7.12.2009, issued show cause notice to the petitioner/appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be externed. On being served, the petitioner/appellant entered into his defence by filing written statement. Simultaneously, he submitted an application under Section 8(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. The grievance of the petitioner/appellant is that without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and without allowing him to crossexamine the witnesses of the State and further without supplying copy of the documents, upon which, opinion was2 formed, the District Magistrate, Ratlam, vide his order dated 7.6.2010 passe...
Mahesh Prasad Bajpai Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Agricultural Demonstrator in the year 1958. In due course, he was promoted to the post of Agricultural Development Officer w.e.f. 27.09.1985. He was aggrieved by him being ignored by the D.P.C. that met on 13.05.1991 for his second promotion to the post of Senior Horticulture Development Officer. He challenged the action of respondents for ignoring him of his second promotion to the post of Senior Horticulture Development Officer by filing an original application before the State Administrative Tribunal. The said application of the petitioner remained pending before the State Administrative Tribunal till the Tribunal was abolished in the year 2002 and further the case of the petitioner was transferred from the Tribunal to this Court for decision. The original application filed by the petitioner before the State Administrative Tribunal upon its transfer to this Court was registered as W.P. No. 2612/2003 and the same was disposed of by this ...
Sharad Kumar Sharma -- Vs -- Collector
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. Smt. Shobha Menon, l earned seni or counsel with Smt. M. P. S. Chuckal , l earned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Shri Ashi sh Shroti , l earned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. 3. The peti ti oner by way of thi s peti ti on fi l ed under Arti cl e 226/227 of the Consti tuti on of Indi a seeks the fol l owi ng rel i ef :- “(i ) to di rect respondents No. 1/ 2 to produce the ori gi nal record of Case No. 23/ 200- 2007 for perusal of thi s Hon'bl e Court. (i i ) to issue an appropri ate Wri t of Mandamus or other appropri ate wri t, di recti ng respondent No. 1/2 to compl ete the i nqui ry wi thi n a sti pul ated peri od and i f respondents No. 4 & 5 are found to be gui l ty, to fol l ow the procedure envi saged under Secti on 40 of M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhi ni yam, 1993. (i i i ) to grant any other rel i ef whi ch this Hon'bl e Court deems fi t and proper under the facts and ci rcumstances of the case, i n the i nterest of j usti ce; and (i v) to award the cost ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »