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.
Gaya Prasad Dwivedi. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties. This is an appeal preferred by appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 11 th September,2009, delivered by 2 nd Addl.Sessions Juge, Satna in Sessions Trial No. 90/08 in which appellant no.1 Gaya Prasad Dwivedi has been convicted and sentenced for 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-under Section 498-A of IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I.for six months, R.I. for 7 years under Section 307 IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one year. Appellants no.2 and 3 Ravendra Singh @ Payak and Smt. Mayabai have been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one 1year. Both the sentences of appellant no.1 were directed to run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the finding of conviction of the appellant but confined hi...
Shambhu Datt SharmA. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. Challenging the order passed by the respondents as contained in Annexure P/10 dated 20.11.2009, rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the matter of fixation of his pay in the pay scale `1820. 3000/. and refusing to grant similar benefit to the petitioner as has been granted to one Dr. Krishna Dutta Bhatele, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Facts, in brief, indicate that petitioner was initially appointed as a Vaidya in Ayurved Dispensary, Mahragaon, District Narsinghpur by the Janpad Sabha, Gadarwara vide order.dated 26.8.1965. In the year 1987, his services were taken over by Janpad Panchayat, Narsinghpur. Vide notification - Annexure P/1 issued on 1.6.1967 certain classifications of Vaidya - Grade I was made and according to the petitioner he was also classified as a Vaidya - Grade I. In the year 1988, the entire dispensary was taken over by the Government and vide order.dated 30.3.1988, 154 Ayurved ChikitsaAdhikari were merged in the services of the Stat...
Kamlesh Kumar Soni Vs. Aheer Motilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner calls in question the order dated 22-09-2010 passed by Sub Divisional officer-cumSpecified Officer, Chhatarpur, in Election Case No. 01/A-89 A-21/2009-10; whereby, an election petition under section 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short the Act of 1993) preferred by the petitioner against the election of respondent No. 2 as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Deri, disrict Chhatarpur, has been dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of provision contained under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the M. P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1995). 3. Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 1995 provides that “ An election Petition shall be presented to the Specified Officer during the office hours by the per...
Ravindra Singh and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-09-2011
(1) This Revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against an order dated 22 nd November 08, passed in Criminal Case No. 6817/2006, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gwalior, returning thereby the charge-sheet for filling before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore on the ground that the main incident of the offence was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Gwalior. (2) As per prosecution case, the complainant Nand Kishore was working as security guard in Balaji Security Services, Navnit Plaza in Silver Sachora building situated on RNT Road at Indore. There being differences in the salary of the security guard and gunman, the complainant wished to occupy the post of gunman but on account of non-possessing the requisite gun-licence, he was unable to avail that opportunity. Hence, he came into contact of the accused-petitioners Sukhendra Singh and Babu Singh Toma...
Abid HussaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-2011
1. Petitioner in person. 2. Petitioner by this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India questions the correctness of order dated 28-10-2010; whereby, Principal Director, Defence Estates, Central Command Lucknow Cantonment rejected the application dated 16-01-2006 filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name in Government Land Register (GLR). 3. Principal Director, Defence Estate, was entertaining the application filed by the petitioner under the direction of this Court given in Contempt Petition No.1078/2009 (Arising out of Writ Petition No. 786/08, decided on 4-2-2008) dated 25-02-2009. The application for mutation has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish that he is the sole claimant of Sugra Bi through whom he claims the right of mutation. 4. Respondent No. 2 while rejecting the application observed in paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 28-10-2010 :- “6. The matter has accordingly been examined. It has been observe...
Umesh Jangalwar. Vs. Mahendra Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred against the order/ judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 26.4.2001 in Criminal Appeal No.224/2010, against the order/judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur dated 18.5.2010, in Criminal Complaint Case No.23697/2006, holding the revisionist guilty of committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months and also to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the alleged offence under Section 138 is compoundable under Section 147 of the said Act, therefore, they have settled their dispute keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act ...
Umesh Jangalwar. Vs. Mahendra Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred against the order/ judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 26.4.2001 in Criminal Appeal No.225/2010, against the order/judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur dated 18.5.2010, in Criminal Complaint Case No.23702/2006, holding the revisionist guilty of committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months and also to pay compensation of Rs.55,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the alleged offence under Section 138 is compoundable under Section 147 of the said Act, therefore, they have settled their dispute keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act ...
K.S.VermA. Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 22-12-2010; whereby, petitioner, an Inspector, Weights and Measures, has been transferred in same capacity from district Bhopal to district Tikamgarh. The petitioner challenges the order of his transfer on two counts. Firstly, it is challenged on the ground that petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer. It is contended that it was only on 15-06-2010 that the petitioner was transferred from Betul to Bhopal in administrative exigency and within six months of his stay at Bhopal is again being transferred from Bhopal to Tikamgarh in administrative exigency. Secondly, it is urged that though the order of transfer is nomenclatured as on administrative ground it suffers from colourable exercise of power. 2. While propitiating first submission it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it is within the power of the respondents/State to transfer its WP 18851.1...
Jagdish Prasad GuptA. Vs. Manish Rastogi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Prima facie, it appears that not only there is a willful disobedience of this Court’s stay order on the part of the opposite party ie. Collector Satna, but he is also guilty of getting false evidence fabricated and submitted in this contempt case in an attempt to cover up the disobedience. 3. The facts are given below. 4. In a writ petition challenging demolition, an interim order dated 26.9.2007 was passed for maintaining status quo till next date of listing. 5. According to the contempt petition, copy of the order was obtained on 27.9.2007 and sent it by FAX and the same was delivered to the respondents at 3.00 P.M. Despite the knowledge of the order of this Court, demolition in question took place at about 5.30 P.M. on 27.9.2007. 6. This contempt petition was filed on 29.9.2007. Its copy was served upon learned counsel for the respondents on 8.10.2007 and he was required by the Court’s order dated 8.10.2007 to obtai...
Ramlal Vs. Shivpal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. Shri Manish Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Alleging violation of an injunction issued in a ‘Second Appeal’, this contempt petition was filed and registered as an independent case titled “Contempt Petition (Civil)” under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Subsequently, upon an application made by the petitioner it was allowed to be converted to an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, and accordingly the section under which the case had been filed namely section 12 was altered to Order 39 Rule 2-A. Thus it remained an indpendent case. 3. According to proper procedure, the petition under Section 12 should have been dismissed or should have been allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Second Appeal. Had that proper procedure been observed, perhaps it might have been easier to decide the factual dispute raised herein, by exami...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »