Madhya Pradesh Court June 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.
Tulsidas Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.10732/2006 Tulsidas Patel versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. ORDER (25.06.2013) The controveRs.involved in the present petition is relating to cancellation of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Head Constable (Excise) as granted in the year 1986 and the subsequent promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector (Excise) granted in the year 2000, by the impugned order dated 20.7.2006 said to be passed by the respondent No.2. The grievance putforth by the petitioner in short is that he was appointed as a Constable in the year 1979 in the Excise Department. He has served honestly and sincerely and considering the candidature of the petitioner, vide order dated 9.9.1986, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Constable (Excise).The petitioner joined on the promoti...
Sikandar Hafiz Alias Nawab Mia Vs. Anwar Mohammad Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
1 W.P.12588 of 2012 W.P.12588 o25. 6.2013 Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Himanshu Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Chourasia, counsel for the respondents. This case is listed today for final hearing at motion stage. With the consent of the parties, the same is taken-up for final hearing. The petitioner/ defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.2012 passed by the 18th Civil Judge Class-II Bhopal in COS No.18-A/10 whereby his application filed under order 26 rule 4 of the CPC to record his deposition on Commission, has been dismissed.2. Having heard the parties, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel after perusing the record, in the available circumstances, on asking the Senior Counsel of the petitioner whether the petitioner/ defendant is ready to record his deposition before the Commissioner in the ground floor of the District and Sessions Court, Bhopal,...
Ganraj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Cr.A.No.2048/2007 25/6/2013: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Challenging his conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC, this appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant has been convicted to undergo 7 years R.I.and fine of Rs.1000/- for an offence under Section 376 of IPC, 3 years R.I.and fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 366 of IPC and 2 years R.I.and fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 363 of IPC. Judgment convicting the appellant was passed on 18.8.2007 and in para 27 of the judgment it is indicated that all the punishment shall run concurrently. Shri Tamrakar, learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Trial Court and tried to emphasize that the conviction is not proper. However, on considering the totality of circumstances, particularly the statement of p...
Satya Narayan Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
W.P.No.7831/2005 (Satya Narayan Dubey and others versus State of MP and another) 25.06.2013 Heard Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State. Though the petitioners have filed this petition praying for quashing of the order dated 26.02.2005 and for a direction to the respondents/authorities to treat the petitioners as surplus employee of B category and appoint them in the regular establishment as Assistant Grade- 3 on account of the fact that they have been engaged to perform electoral work, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that three of the petitioners namely, petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 do not wish to press the present petition and reliefs sought for therein and pray for withdrawal of their petition. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 is allowed and the petition on behalf of the aforesaid petitioners is permitted to be withdrawn. As far as the petitioner No.3 is conce...
Ranjeet Sharma Vs. Shri K.K. Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
-1- C.P.No.1250/2012 25.6.2013 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Though a copy of communication dated 27.3.2013 (Anneure R/1) has been filed by the respondents indicating therein that order dated 9.1.2012 passed in W.P.No.21589/2011 whereby, respondents were required to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner claiming seniority as well as promotion on the post of Head Clerk in accordance with law, has been complied with. Learned counsel for the respondents however, fail to establish the aspect of the petitioner's representation claiming seniority as well as promotion which was directed to be decided by the respondents. In view whereof, therefore, it cannot be held that order dated 9.1.2012 passed in W.P.No.21689/2011 (S) has been complied by the respondents. In the interest of justice further 15 days time is granted to the respondents to pass a -2- speaking order on the representation filed by the pe...
Devendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
1 W.A.No.518/2013 Devendra Singh State of M.P.& others 25.6.2013 Shri Neeraj Ashar, Counsel for appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for respondents/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 4.2.2010 in W.P.No.13417/2003 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order of removal, in the departmental proceedings, was dismissed. The allegations against the appellant were that the appellant had received illegal gratification, in Crime No.122 of 1989 of Police Station Kundam, District Jabalpur for an offence under Section 302/34 of IPC from the so-called accused persons. In the departmental enquiry, aforesaid charges were found proved and subsequently the appeal against the punishment order was dismissed. This appeal is barred by limitation by 2 years 350 days for which, appellant has filed an application (I.A.No.7441/2013) seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. Considering long delay in filing the appeal, we find it appropriate to look ...
Raju Kalia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Cr.A.No.1054/07 25/06/13 Shri N.S.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Appellant has been convicted to undergo jail sentence of 7 years for an offence U/s 394 r/w Section 397 of I.P.C. From the records, it is seen that the appellant was not granted bail not the sentence was suspended. The appellant during the pendency of the trial had been in custody for various periods and not the total period of custody has been exceeded for more than 8 yeaRs.It is seen that appellant has undergone jail sentence of conviction and in all probability, he should be released. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that the appellant be released forthwith as he has already undergone jail sentence and there is nothing to indicate that any further indulgence into the matter is called for. Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Smt Kanti Gupta Vs. Ashok Kumar Burman
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11981/2012 25.6.2013 Shri Mohd. Ali, Advocate for the applicants. Respondent No.1 Ashok Kumar Burman is present in person. Ms.Pratibha Mishra, PL for the State. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. This petition has been filed by the applicants invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.for quashing Complaint Case No.13630/2010 pending before the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.1 filed a private complaint before JMFC, Jabalpur alleging that F.A.No.267/2009 between the applicants and respondent No.1 is pending before this Court, in which this Court has granted stay. It has been further alleged that on 25.5.2010, the applicants entered into the house of respondent No.1, abused him, assaulted him and threatened him to vacate the house. Initially, respondent No.1 lodged report to the Police Station, but the Police did not take any action, therefore, he filed priv...
Kedar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Cr.A.No.118/2011 25.6.2013 Shri Rajendra Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Gajendra Tamsi, Advocate for the complainants. Appellants and complainants are present in person. They have been identified by their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.No.10298/2013, which is an application seeking permission to compromise the matter. Learned counsel for the complainants has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter and they have settled their dispute out of the Court. not they want to live peacefully, therefore, they have filed a this application seeking permission to compromise the matter. I have perused the record. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 326/34, 323/34, 325/34, 294 of the IPC, out of which except the offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC, remaining offence are compoundable. In these circumstances, I.A.No.10298/2013 is partly allowed. The parties are permitted to compromise the matter with resp...
Chandra Prakash Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-25-2013
Cr.A.No.77/2007 25/6/2013: None appears for the appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Appellant has been convicted to undergo 7 years R.I.and fine of Rs.1000/- for having committed an offence under Section 394 of IPC, 7 years R.I.for an offence under Section 397 of IPC and 3 years R.I.and fine of Rs.500/- for an offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. Appellant has been convicted on 29.12.2006 along with various other co-accused persons who have filed Criminal Appeal No.288/2007. Appellant has been in custody since commission of offence and is in jail after the judgment was pronounced on 29.12.2006. Record indicates that his application for seeking suspension of sentence has been rejected and he has already undergone sentence of more than 7 years and in connected Criminal Appeal No.288/2007 this Court has already disposed of the appeal as the co-accused who have been arrested along with the appellant have already undergone the jail sentence. Taking note of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »