Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Ramagovind Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
W.P.No.12694/2013 Ramagovind Mishra vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 26.07.2013 Heard Shri Y.M.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Chirhai to Gram Panchayat Judwani inJanpad Panchayat Ramnagar, District Satna. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority themselves by filing a representation. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that...
Deepak Vs. Santosh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8526/2013 26.07.2013 Shri Imtiaz Husain, Advocate for the applicant. Heard. Applicant/accused has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C.against the order dated 13.6.2013 whereby the application filed by the applicant under section 91 of Cr.P.C.for summoning the police record in respect of the report made by him for loss of cheque book was rejected. On perusal of order though I find no error in the order, but if applicant moves such an application at the stage when he enters into his defence, such an application shall be considered by the trial Court according to law. Subject to above observation, this petition is disposed of. (Rakesh Saksena) Judge b...
Kunj Bihari Yaduvanshi Vs. Shivnandan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Cr.R.No.1443/2012 26.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri N.K.Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for respondent no.2-State. Heard on admission. This revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 6/4/2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwada, District Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No.218/2006, whereby the respondent, though convicted under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).has been sentenced only under Section 306 of the IPC for 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent is father-in-law of Kavita (since deceased).and along with other family members used to subject Kavita to cruelty and harassment, due to whi...
Devnarayan Verma Vs. Nannu Lal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Cr.A.No.1777/2013 26.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Ku. Mamta Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent no.3-State. Heard on I.A.No.16752/13, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As per office note, the appeal is barred by 24 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The appeal is arguable, hence admitted for final hearing. Record of the trial Court has already been received. Let bailable warrant of arrest in the sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand).be issued against each one of respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely Nannulal and Mithun, for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 4/9/13 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard. Matter be listed, along with connected Cr.A.No.1306/13, for final hearing in due course. (AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)...
Mrityunjaya Panika Vs. M.P.Public Service Commission
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
W.P.No.11778/2013 (Mrityunjaya Panika versus State of MP and otheRs.26.07.2013 Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State and Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned counsel for respondents/ M.P.P.S.C on advance copy. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.636/13 on 17.07.2013, in similar petitions, has issued the following orders:- (I) The appellants to furnish all their documents duly attested in the office of respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from today. (II) On furnishing such documents, respondent No.1 will examine the documents and if the appellants are eligible for the interview, the respondents shall permit the appellants to participate in the interview process which is at present going on. In view of the aforesaid the present petition is also disposed of in the light of W.A.No.636/13 decided on 17.07.2013 in similar terms and for the same reasons as stated ...
Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
1 WA No.598/13 26.07.2013. Shri Abhishek Arjaria, learned counsel for appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy AG for respondent No.1 to 3. Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.5. This appeal is directed against an Order dated 25.03.13 passed in WP No.9499/09 by which the learned Single Judge has vacated ad-interim writ in the matter which was granted on 16.09.09. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid order on the following grounds :- (a) That, the appellant was selected in the year 2007 and he was working as Panchayat Karmi since 8.10.07, and result of vacating the ad-interim writ is that the appellant has been removed from the post , and not the Gram Panchayat has initiated process for recruitment of another Panchayat Karmi; (b) That, the appellant was possessing due qualification at the time of recruitment, and on the basis of same he was recruited. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 has opposed the aforesaid contention. It wa...
Sukhram Kolare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8426/2013 26.07.2013 Shri Rama Shankar Yadav, Advocate for the applicant. Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard. Applicant Sukhram Kolare has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Parasiya in Criminal Case No.451/2013. On the report lodged by Smt. Neetu Kolare, a case under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against five accused persons. Neetu Kolare made allegations that after marriage accused persons made demand of dowry and on not meeting the said demand accused persons harassed her and subjected her to cruelty. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no allegation against the applicant was made in the fiRs.information report and the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by other witnesses. However, in the st...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raju
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Cr.A.No.1389/2011 26.7.2013 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State. Heard on I.A.No.12306/11, which is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As per Office note appeal is barred by 80 days. Looking to the facts mentioned in the application, application is allowed and delay is condoned. Heard on admission. Appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code. for short) against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. Appellant-State is aggrieved with the sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, in Session Trial No.46/2010 on 3/2/2011, whereby learned trial Court has convicted respondent Raju under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC.) and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine stipulation has been imposed. As per the prosecution story, on 16/6/10 in the afternoon, prosecutrix, aged about 7 ...
Pramod Kumar Chourasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Pramod Kumar Chourasiya versus State of M.P.and others.W.P. No.12582/13 26/07/13 Shri Gyan Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Challenging the communication dated 26/06/13 passed by respondent No.2 cancelling the process of tender which was initiated, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that on 5/04/13, a Notice Inviting Tender was issued whereby for the purpose of conducting Janani Express Vehicle (Ambulance service) in various blocks of Mandla District, offers were called for. Petitioner also submitted his offer and deposited the security amount. Petitioner's offer was accepted but not the agreement has been cancelled. Challenging the cancellation of tender process and the agreement, this writ petition is filed and challenge is not made to the letter Annexure P-7 dated 26/06/13 on the ground that the process of contract has been cancelled without any just cause or reason. Shr...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ballu @ Maate
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.13861/2011 26.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code. for short) against acquittal of the respondent of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.).The impugned judgment dated 30/8/2011 was passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No.284/10. As per the prosecution story, relations between the respondent and Ramlal (since deceased) were strained in view of the fact that wife of the respondent had eloped with Gorelal, cousin of Ramlal. On 2/2/10 at about 8-8.30 p.m., Ramlal returned from the house of respondent and told his wife that respondent had given Kerosene oil to him in the guise of liquor. After taking saline water, he again went to the house of respondent, where he started vomiting. As Ramlals condition deteriorated, his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »