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.
Lalu Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.678/2003 Lalu...Appellant Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh...Respondent For the appellant : Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Puneet Shroti, Government Advocate. ****** Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ****** JUDGMENT (27.6.2013) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by : Ajit Singh, J.The sole appellant Lalu has been convicted for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- or, in default of payment of fine, two months rigorous imprisonment.2. Victim Lalwa, aged about 50 years, was father of the appellant.3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant lived separately along with his family from father Lalwa and mother Gopibai (P.W.1). On 29.3.2002 the appellant invited Lalwa and Gopibai to his house on the eve of Holi festival. There appellant and Lalwa consumed liquo...
Siddh-baba Mahila Swasahayata Samuh Kudiya (Kothar) Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 W.P. No. 17229 Of 2012 27.6.2013 Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Order dated 31.7.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa is being assailed. Vide impugned order the appellate authority while affirming the order dated 3.7.2012 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat, Rampur Naikin and order dated 16.7.2012 passed by Chief Execution Officer, Jila Panchayat, Sidhi of allotting the work of distribution of middaymeal in Primary School, Mudia in favour of respondent No. 5 Indira Gandhi Mahila Swasahayata Samuh,has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that the work of distribution of middaymeal in two schools, viz., Primary School Mudia and Middle School, Mudia was satisfactorily being carried out by the petitioner Self Help Group Since 2009 under the scheme floated by the State Government throu...
Shafat Beg Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
W.P.No.10186/2013 Shafat Beg vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 27.06.2013 Shri Praveen Verma learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to assail the impugned order by filing an appeal. He, however, prays that on his doing so within two weeks, the respondents be directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, on advance copy, has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to assail the impugned order by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does file an appeal within two weeks from today alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the c...
Mahesh Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 W P No.10529/13. Writ Petition No.10529/2013. 27.6.2013 . Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. ORDER 1. The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders dated 9.4.2013 and 17.4.2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Bada Malehara in C. O. S. No.27-A/2012, whereby vide order dated 9.4.2013 his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the District and Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur as defendant in the suit has been dismissed while vide order dated 17.4.2013 his three applications, filed (i) under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint (ii) under Section 80 (2) of CPC for grant of leave to amend and/or file the suit against the District and Sessions Judge, Chhatapur without serving the statutory notice on it and (iii) repeat application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the District and Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur as defendant in the ...
Niranjan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
W.A.No.1089/2012 1 Niranjan Singh vs The State of M.P.27/06/2013 Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the respondent/State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 09.05.2012 passed in W.P.No.17155/2007, by which, the writ petition preferred by the appellant against an order dated 12th November, 2007 of the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in an appeal, which was preferred against an order dated 01.10.2003 of the District Magistrate cancelling the arms licence of the appellant, has been dismissed.2. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that after issuance of licence, a criminal case was registered against the appellant and the appellant was directed by the District Magistrate by an order Annexure R/6 dated 29.07.2003 to deposit the arm, but the arm was not deposited and ultimately on 01.10.2003 a final order was passed, by which, the arms licence of the appellant was cancelled. Apart from this, against th...
Smt. Poonam Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P.No.7256 of 2012 Smt. Poonam Singh Versus State of M.P. & others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A. for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.No.14403 of 2012 Smt. Poonam Singh Versus State of M.P. & others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A. for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S.Jha ORDER (27-06-2013) As both the petitions involve connected and identical issues, therefore, they are heard and decided to...
Madhya Pradesh Pensioner\'s Samaj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 W.A.No.337/2013 M.P.Pensioner's Samaj State of M.P.& others 27.6.2013 Shri A.K.Tiwari, Counsel for appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for respondents/State. This petition is directed against an order dated 8.3.2013 in W.P.No.3428/2013 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant for re-opening of the seal from the office of the PensioneRs.Samaj was rejected on the ground that there is a dispute in two groups. Both are claiming the same office. A civil suit is pending before the 4th Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in which an application for temporary injunction has already been rejected. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the appellant to get adjudicated the dispute in civil suit. This order is under challenged in this appeal. From the perusal of the record, we find that another writ petition registered as W.P.No.2235/2013 in respect of same subject-matter is pending before the writ Court, in which an interim direction has been issued on 18.2.201...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajani Sahu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR {SINBLE BENC H OF HON'BLE SMT. JUSTIC E VIMLA JAIN M.A. No.3423/2008 New India Assurance Company Limited 290 Napier Town, Jabalpur APPELLANT Versus 1.Smt.Rajani Sahu W/o. Late Rakesh Sahu Aged about 25 years 2.Ku.Megha Sahu D/o. Late Rakesh Sahu Aged about 5 years 3.Ku.Varshya Sahu D/o.Late Rakesh Sahu Aged about 3 years 4.Kundanlal Sahu S/o.Hajarilal Sahu Aged about 55 years 5.Smt.Bhagwati Sahu W/o. Kundanlal Sahu Aged about 50 years All respondent Nos. 1 to 5 resident of Ward No.9 Prem Nagar, Mandideep Raisen 6. Sanjeet Kumar S/o. Kanhaiyalal Occupation Driver R/o.House No.15, BGBT Collete Road Bhopal 7.Lalaramji S/o.Gyanchandji Occupation Owner R/o. House No.9 Kohinoor Colony Indore RESPONDENTS Shri Jayant Neekhra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vishal Dhagat, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. (2) Date of hearing :20. 6.2013 Date of Order :27. 6.2013 ORDER 1. The present miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ...
Pradeep Agnihotri Vs. Smt. Ajita Bajpayee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
1 C.P.No.1126/2013 27.6.2013 Shri K.C.Ghidiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Alleging willful disobedience of order dated 25.8.2010 passed in W.P.No.1146/2010 petitioner has filed this petition. Petitioner a Workshop Superintendent in Technical Education and Training Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh being aggrieved of non-grant of benefit of enhanced age of retirement ,i.e., 62 to 65 years filed Writ Petition no.11468/2010(s).Claiming parity with the petitioners in W.P.No.6328/2010(s) the petitioner was granted an interim relief on 25.8.2010; whereby respondents were restrained from retiring the petitioner from service. Said writ petition ,i.e, W.P.No.11468/2010 was heard along with batch of other cases and was decided vide order dated 23.8.2012 in the following terMs.21. As far as ground with regard to amendment brought into effect under Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya 2 Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam,. 2011 is concerned this statutory provis...
Nanbai Paw Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-2013
Writ Petition No.17469/11 24.6.2013 Shri S.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuing the appropriate writ directing the authorities of the respondent no.3 to consider his case and pay the compensation and provide service to his son in lieu of Acquisition of his land. Having heard the petitioners counsel, I have carefully gone through the papers placed. It is apparent from the record that with respect of the dispute raised in this petition on behalf of petitioner so many representations Annexure-P-1 dated 26.5.2006, Annexure-P-3 dated 16.6.2006 and Annexure-P-4 17.4.2007, have been given to the authorities of the respondents on which, the respondent no.5 Collector Anuppur, has recommended the prayer of the petitioner by the letter dated 27.5.2006 (Annexure-P-2).20.10.2009 (Annexure-P-10).1.10.2007 (Annexure-P-5) and on dated 5.7.2009 (Annexure-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »