Madhya Pradesh Court October 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.
Vijay Kol Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
Criminal Revision No.1300/2013 1.10.2013 Shri R.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Umesh Pandey, GA for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 53 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 being aggrieved by order dated 26.6.2013 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.158/2013. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that on 27.5.2013 when complainant inquired from the applicant, why he assaulted his friend Sunny, the applicant took out a knife and stabbed on his stomach. A report was lodged at P.S.Ranjhi. The applicant was arrested and being a juvenile, he was sent to remand home. Thereafter, the father of the applicant filed an application for releasing the applicant on supurdginama before Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.6.2013. Being aggrieved there...
Smt. Nirmal Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
W.P.No.17714/2013 (Smt. Nirmal Gupta versus State of MP and otheRs.01.10.2013 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Default pointed out by the Registry is ignored. Further heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had obtained a contract of construction of a warehouse godown. However, subsequently, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the land on which the proposed construction of the godown was to be made, was duly notified as forest land and in such circumstances, the petitioner applied for change of place in accordance with the circular of the M.P.Warehousing and Logistics Corporation dated 22.05.2013 but the respondents/authorities have not considered and rejected the petitioner's representation in view of the clause 12 of the Tender conditions without taking note of the aforesaid circular which permits change of place. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, i...
Vinod @ Golu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
Cr.A.No.1201/2011 1.10.2013 Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent-State. Heard on I.A.No.15388/12 which is repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Nos.2 and 3 namely Jitendra alias Jeetu S/o Dwarka Prasad and Jitendra alias Jeetu S/o Mohanlal Dubey. The earlier one was dismissed vide order dated 27/1/12 as not pressed. Appellants have been convicted under Sections 364, 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, for kidnapping Abhishek Sharma and in furtherance of their common intention, causing his death and throwing the dead body in a field situated by the side of Road at Village Badnagar. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that prosecution had failed to prove that blood stains found on the T-shirt of appellant no.3 were not of appellant himself and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said blood stains were of the deceased. He also cont...
Anil Singh@abbu Seth Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1722/2009 01.10.2013 Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Govt. Adv for respondent-State. Heard on IA No.15128/12, second repeat application on behalf of appellant No.2, Ravindra Singh for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 29, r/ w Section 8-C and r/w Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) and 8 - C, r/w Section 20 (ii- C ) of the N.D.P.S.Act 1985 for ten years RI with fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of depositing the fine amount further 30 months RI. His earlier application filed in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 13.5.2010 and the present repeat application is preferred mainly on the ground of parity as subsequent to aforesaid dismissal, the appellant No.1 Anil Singh @ Abhu Seth has been directed to be released on bail after suspending his remaining jail sentence by the Coordinate Bench of this court, vide order dated 18.5.2012...
Jitendra Pawar Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1798/1997 Jitendra Pawar Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri S.K.P. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Umesh Tripathi, GA for the respondent. JUDGMENT ( 1/10/2013) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21/07/97 passed by Special Judge (N.D.P.S Act) Jabalpur in special case No.21/97 whereby he has been convicted u/s 8 read with section 20 (1) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years & fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer further SI for 3 months.2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this appeal are that on 19/02/97 Shivnaresh (PW-2), Assistant Sub Inspector Police Station Kirnapur received a secret information that appellant is having in possession of 2 contraband. Shivnaresh registered the aforesaid information in Roznamcha sanha and informed his superior officers in this regard. Thereafter,...
Awadesh Prasad Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.M.Cr.C.No.872/2011 Awadhesh Prasad Tiwari VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh and another --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A. for the State/respondent No.1. Nonefor the respondent No.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 1st day of October, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Damoh in criminal case No.67/2011, whereby the cognizance of offence punishable under section 4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'Special Act') was taken against the applicant.2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the prosecutrix/complainant h...
Sikh Education Society Vs. Secretary, School Education Deptt.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No 75/2002 Sikh Education Society and another Vs. State of MP and others Present : Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioners : Shri Akash Choudhary, advocate. For the respondents : Shri S.M. Lal, G.A. ORDER (01.10.2013) The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 26.03.1993 whereby the Principal of the School run by the Society has been directed to be reinstated with a further stipulation that the society shall bear the backwages on account of the fact that the termination and other proceedings taken up by the were issued without approval of the authority of the State and dehors the procedures prescribed by law.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners it is observed that the petitioners had previously filed M.P. No.995/93 before this court assailing the order dated 26.03.1993 which was dismissed by this court on 16.04.1993. The order passed by this court was challenged before the Apex 2 Cou...
Mohammad Saeed Queshi Vs. Smt. Irshad Bi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
1 W.P.No.11686/13. 1.10.2013. Shri Adil Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 20.2.2013 (Ann. P.2) passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II Bhopal in C.S.No.107-A/2012, whereby his right to file the written statement on account of expiry of the statutory prescribed period and delay, has been closed. In the couRs.of the argument on asking the petitioner's counsel inspite taking near about 14 adjournments from 22.2.2013 till passing the impugned order written statement was not filed, so in such premises the petitioner has already got the period of 90 days to file the same before the trial Court then how this petition could be entertained specially when the petitioner has come to this Court against the impugned order without filing the written statement along with appropriate application for condoning the delay, on which i...
Babulal Patkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12277/2013 1.10.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri J.N.Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent-State. With consent, the matter is finally heard. This petition has been preferred, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).challenging the order dated 26.8.2013 passed by Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act)).at Satna in Special Case No.02/2008, whereby the trial Court rejected the prayer for summoning certain witnesses in defence and directed the petitioner to keep them present if he so desired. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on one hand, trial Court has allowed the application (Ex.D/2) dated 23/8/13 to examine six witnesses named therein, but on the other, it was directed that the petitioner shall keep them present before the trial Court. He contended that it is not possible to keep them present without summoning them, as certain witnesses ar...
Pradeep Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16615/2013 1 01.10.2013 Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioner. It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Mohanlal...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »