Madhya Pradesh Court January 2013 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.
Kailash Kumawat Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
(1) HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.363 of 1997 Kailash Kumawat. Versus. State of M.P. For appellant : Shri Amit Verma, Advocate. For respondent : Shri Lalig Joglekar, Panel Lawyer. JUDGMENT (ORAL) (09.01.2013.) U.C. MAHESHWARI J.This appeal is directed by the appellant/accused under section 374 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.1.1997 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.327/95 whereby he is convicted and sentenced under section 326 of the IPC for RI 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of depositing the fine for further six months simple imprisonment.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 16.6.95 at about 8 O' Clock in the morning the victim/complainant Ajay Dua (PW 2.lodged the FIR at P.S. Piplani, Bhopal against the appellant contending that yesterday on 15.5.95, appellant Kailash under influence of liquor, abused him with filthy languages and also threatened to give him a ...
Tarachand Mishra Vs. Shri Tarachand Patle
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc.C.No :2049. 2012 Tarachand Mishra versus Shri Tarachand Patle. 09.01.2013. Shri Jitendra Tiwari for the applicant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Deputy Advocate General, for the non-applicant. In view of the order passed by the non-applicant, rejecting the claim of the applicant, for the present no action is required to be taken. In case applicant has any grievance still subsisting in the matter, he may challenge the subsequent order passed rejecting his claim before an appropriate forum. With the aforesaid liberty, finding no case for initiating any action for contempt, the non-applicant is discharged and the application dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Ravindra College Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
W.P.No.49/2013 09.01.2013 Shri Manot Sharma with Shri Dharmendra Soni, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy. Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Mahendra Pateriya, Advocate for respondent No.3-University. A prayer is made on behalf of petitioner-College to permit the students of B.C.A.1st Semester, B.A.1st Semester to appear in the examination scheduled from 10th and 15th of January, 2013. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by Shri Jaideep Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 on the ground that on similar ground another Division Bench in W.P.No.8124/2012 on 31.05.2012 had declined the relief. It is also submitted by Shri Jaideep Singh that College level counselling was not permissible and the students who were admitted by the College, are not entitled to appear in the examination and placed reliance to a judgment of Apex Court in Shri Kanha Shiksha P.P.S.K.Samiti etc.versus State of M.P.and others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No...
Ku. Kriti Tiwari Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1...W.P.No.67 o09. 01.2013 Shri Anurag Sahu, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Additional A.G.for the respondent No.1. Petitioner is directed to serve copy of this petition to the standing counsel of respondent No.2 and 3 by next working day against acknowledgment and to file acknowledgment in the office. On filing the same, office to reflect name of the counsels for respondents No.2 and 3. Ad interim writ : Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents may be directed to allow three marks of grace in subject periodontics. because as per the Ordinance, up to 5 marks can be awarded who could not clear the paper. On raising such contention, Shri Kaurav, learned counsel for respondent/University submitted that from the perusal of Annexure P-1, it is apparent that before second attempt of the students and in second attempt only one mark can be awarded by way of grace. So far as Ordinance Annexure P-2 is concerned, it is by Dental Council of India and ...
Rajendra Prasad Pandey Vs. Dr. R.N. Tiwari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Conc.C.No :2089. 2012 Rajendra Prasad Pandey versus Dr. R.N.Tiwari. 09.01.2013. Shri Sanjay Sarwate for the applicant. Interalia contending that certain directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.2580/2012(S) has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. Being aggrieved by his supersession and non-grant of promotion applicant/petitioner filed the writ petition. When the petition came up for hearing, on the very fiRs.day itself this Court without notice to the respondents, without hearing and without entering into the matter on merits, by an innocuous order directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the applicant. The representation has been considered and promotion has been granted to the applicant. Interalia contending that a reasoned order has not been passed and seniority to the applicant retrospectively is not granted, applicant wants this Court to initiate action for contempt. I am afraid...
M/S Sharma Lamination, Vs. State Bank of Patiala
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
R.P.No.4/20109. 01.2013 Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. The applicant seeks modification in the order dated 04.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.18778/2012 stating that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 08.11.2012 passed in W.P.No.18234/2012. Later on the order dated 08.11.2012 passed in W.P.No.18234/2004 is modified by passing an order on 14.12.2012 in Review Petition No.898/2012. It is contended that the modification has been done in the aforesaid order granting protection that till deciding the aforesaid representation no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in the matter.Accordingly, it is stated that the very same protection be also granted to the applicant by modifying the order dated 04.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.18778/2012. We are not in agreement with the learned Counsel for the applicant, particularly since protective orders are discretionary orders and...
Hemendra Singh Thakur Vs. Shri Suleman Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1 Conc. No.1367/2010 Hemendra Singh Thakur Shri Suleman Khan & others 9.1.2013 Shri Prakash Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the order passed by this Court dated 12.3.2010 in W.P.No.2823/2009 has been complied with. By the aforesaid order, the Division Bench had directed thus:- Accordingly, the respondents are directed to supply electricity to the areas comprised in Nagar Panchayat, Hindoriya, District & Tahsil Damoh treating the same as urban area in accordance with the order issued by the State Government under Section 37 of the Electricity Act, 2003 from time to time. In the reply, respondents have filed copy of the order dated 21.5.2010 and have specifically averred in Para 5 thus:- 5. That, it is most respectfully submitted that the urban feeder for the purpose of supply has been further divided into three sub categories. FiRs.one is divisional headquarter, second is district headquarter and third is Tahsil headquarter. The said division is to mini...
Chief Executive Officer,janpad Panchayat Vs. Mohanlal Jangela
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Review Petition No :641. 2012 Chief Executive Officer versus Mohanlal Jangela and others 09.01.2013. Shri Pranay Choubey for the applicant. Dr. R.B.Dubey for the non-applicant No.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the totality of the facts, it is seen that Writ Petition No.2921/2009 was disposed of in the light of the law laid down in the case of Asha Saxena versus State of MP and otheRs.SLP (C) No.1888/2006. The question as to whether the said principle laid down in the case of Asha Saxena (supra) would be made applicable to Teachers working in the Janpad Panchayat is a question which has to be determined and, therefore, in disposing of the petition in the light of the above order, an error has been committed by this Court. In view of the above, the application is allowed. Order- dated 15.12.2010, passed in Writ Petition No.2921/2009 is recalled. The said writ petition is restored to its file and it be placed for orders before the appropriate Bench...
Kamalkant Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
M.C.C.No :1480. 2012 Kamlakant Tiwari versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.09.01.2013. Shri S.P.Pandey for the petitioner. This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.20947/2012, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18.12.2012. The default is attributed to some lapse in the office of the counsel. The application is supported by affidavit of the counsel and I see no reason to disbelieve the same. Accordingly, the application is allowed and W.P.No.20947/2012 is restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before the Appropriate Bench. Application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Vinod Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cri. Appeal No.1608/2008 Vinot Kumar, son of Girja Shankar Dubey aged about 27 years, resident of Gram Byavra Distt. Hoshangabad, Presently residing at Ganesh Talai, Khandwa Appellant vs. State of M.P., through SHO P.S. Moghat Road, Distt. Khandwa Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshya Namdeo, P.L. for the respondent-State. and Cri. Appeal No.1708/2008 Rakesh alias Ramesh, son of Arjun Malakar aged about 23 years, Resident of Ward No.2, Ganesh Talai Khandwa Appellant vs. State of M.P., through SHO P.S. Moghat Road, Distt. Khandwa Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.S. Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshya Namdeo, P.L. for the respondent-State. JUDGMENT (9.1.2013) These appeals are interlinked as preferred against the judgment dated 24th...
- ‹ Prev
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- Next ›
- Last »