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.
Mohd. Rasid Musalman @ Laluy Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1019/2010 Appellant: Mohammad Rasid Musalman @ Lallu S/o Safi Mohammad, aged about 56 years, R/o Village-Singhpur, Police Station Kotwali, Shahdol District Sahdol (M.P.) Vs. Respondent: State of M.P. Through Police Station Kotwali, District Shahdol Present: Hon. Shri B.D.Rathi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For appellant : Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (08/10/2013) This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code.), being aggrieved with the judgment dated 25.02.2010 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, in S.T. No.155/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.) & Sectio...
Shekhar Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
1 W.P.No.16853/2013 07.10.2013 Shri Anurag Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General, for respondents-State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The complaint made by the petitioners is that no action is being taken by the respondents-authorities against respondents No.5 to 9. By way of this petition, the petitioner have sought direction to command the respondents No.1 to 4 to provide proper protection to their life and liberty can be secured and to direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to take no coercive action against petitioner No.1 and his innocent family membeRs.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are adult and according to their freewill, they have performed the marriage. However, their marriage is not being accepted or recognised by respondents No.5 to 9 and they are threatening the petitioners and are harassing the petitioner No.1. The complaints in this respect have be...
Jitendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4588/2013 07.10.2013 Shri T.S.Ruprah, Sr.Advocate with Shri U.S.Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State. Shri Devang Trivedi, Advocate for the respondent No.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to quash the proceeding of Crime No.39/2013 registered at Police Station Rehli District Sagar for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC. The brief facts of the case are that there was a dispute of land between the deceased Laxmi Narayan and the applicants that the applicants were claiming their land in the land of the deceased. The deceased has committed suicide on 20.6.2012 by leaving two suicidal notes in which it was mentioned that due to harassment done by the applicants he committed suicide. Also that the deceased was unable to bear the insult caused by the applicants, and therefore he committed...
Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
1...W.P.No.1219 of 1998 Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak State of M.P.Munch 07.10.2013 Dr.P.G.Najpande, for the petitioner. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. A.G.for the State of M.P.Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Sr.Advocate with Shri Vikram Johri, Counsel for M.P.Pollution Control Board. Shri V.S.Rao, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Manish Verma, Counsel for dairy owneRs.Shri Pathak learned Dy. A.G.submitted that for transferring the land of Samadhi Road, KhaSr.No.337,513,514, area 10.40 hectare, a public notice has been issued in the newspapers on 5.10.2013 and objections have been invited till 17.10.2013 so hearing of this case may adjourned after 17.10.2013 so that before the next date of hearing other formalities may be completed. Prayer is allowed. Shri Shroti, learned Counsel appearing for M.P.Pollution Control Board submitted that on 23.6.2013, the Board has inspected the site which is near Samadhi Road as pointed out by the officers of the State and the petitioner and a report in this...
Abhishek Tamrakar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
W.P.No.9746/2010 07.10.2013 Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. In compliance of Court order dated 26.08.2013, Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Patera, District Damoh is present in person. It is contended that a return has also been filed by the said respondent. Learned Government Advocate is directed to file an apology in writing on behalf of respondent No.3 for condoning the non-appearance and inaction on his part for not filing the return timely in response to the notice of this Court issued. If such an application is filed with an affidavit during the couRs.of the day, the same be taken on record. Looking to the aforesaid conduct, the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Patera, District Damoh is warned to be more careful with respect to the action required to be taken in response to the notice of this Court and should not repeat the mistake again. It is contended that th...
Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
W.P.No.17317/2013 07.10.2013 Shri Shreekant Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended in the writ petition that the dispute is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Dwarkesh versus State of M.P and another, [2004 (1) MPLJ261 and other analogous matters in W.P.No.2354/2003, W.P.No.2880/2003 (O.A.No.1309 and 2022 of 2002 decided on 30.8.2003) by Indore Bench of this Court and in the case of Ku.Neena Dwivedi and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2004(2) MPHT221 Also reliance is placed on the order passed in the case of Shashi Bhusan Dwivedi versus State of M.P and others (W.P.No.6932/2006(s) decided by this Court on 15/05/2006. It is further contended that after the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases certain instructions were issued by the State Government. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court has further disposed of certain wri...
Naveen Chandra Vs. Pulkit Jyotishi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12337/2013 07.10.2013 Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. By this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.the applicant has challenged the order dated 28.12.2012 passed by the learned SDM Vijayraghogarh District Katni by which it was directed that the applicant be called and he be sent to the jail in the proceeding under Section 110 of Cr.P.C.The brief facts of the case are that the SHO of Police Station Barhi District Katni has filed an Istagasa before the SDM Barhi on 12.12.2012 under Section 110 of Cr.P.C.against the applicant and notice was issued to the applicant as to why preliminary order be not passed against him and he was directed to appear on 28.12.2012. On 28.12.2012 it was directed that the applicant be called and he be sent to the jail so that peace may be kept in the locality. After considering the submissions made...
Kamlakant Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
WRIT PETITION No.16824/2013 1 07.10.2013 Shri Rajkumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the app...
Mh. Ayyub Siddique Vs. Bank of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Writ Petition No.16907/13 07.10.2013 Shri Rajmani Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner, who was guarantor of some loan transaction of the respondent-Bank, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- (1) Call upon the entire material on record pursuant to the instant controveRs.for the satisfaction of this Honble Court. (2) Quash and set aside the impugned auction notice (Annexure-P-1) and direct the bank to settle the dues as per the settlement letter (Annexure-P-3) in the interest of justice. It is apparent that the aforesaid notice has been published under the provision of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act so in such premises, the question involved in the petition could be considered and adjudicated on merits by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if the party approaches with appro...
ishan Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrasturcture Developmnt ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
1 WP No.16382/13 (PIL) 07.10.2013. Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl.AG for the respondents No.4,5 and 6. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs :- (a).To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondent no.9 and 10 may kindly be restrained to raise the construction over the open space of the colony; (b) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondent no.5 and 6 may kindly be directed to enquire into the matter in respect to forgery committed by respondent No.7 to 10; (c) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to take action against the erring officer who were involved in forged sale deed; (d) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to cancel the building permission in favour of respondent No.9 and 10; (e) Any other relief which this Honble Court deems fit may kindly be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case including...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »