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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Baijnath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.13822/2011 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 offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act.).The impugned judgment dated 21/7/2011 was passed by Special Judge (under the Act) at Tikamgarh in Special Sessions Case No.5/08. As per the prosecution story, on 13/4/07, when the prosecutrix, a member of scheduled caste, was going to the house of her maternal uncle after appearing in Class VIIth examination, the respondent after threatening to kill her parents and administering her stupefying substance, took her to various places viz. Jhansi, Ambala and Delhi and f...
Dr. Abha Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
W.P.No.12680 / 2013 (Dr. Abha Verma ..Vs..State of MP & otheRs.26-07-2013 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akash Chaudhary, learned panel lawyer for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order of her deployment dated 17-7-2013 from Government Model Science College, Rewa to the Government Naveen College, Semariya. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is 61 years of age and has already undergone major spinal surgery twice on account of which it is practically not possible for the petitioner to travel for 50 KMs.in a bus and also in the absence of any suitable affordable accommodation it would be impossible for the petitioner to perform her duties at Semariya. It is stated that the impugned order is not one of the transfer but is an order of deployment by which the teachers are posted on rotation to newly opened colleges for a period of two m...
Vinay Kumar Golandaaj Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Prad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
W.P.No.7810/2009 26/7/2013: Shri Vikas Mahawar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner appeared in the Pre Medical Entrance examination test conducted in the year 2001. Petitioner was successful in the same and was allotted a seat in the Government Medical College. However, as a less meritorious candidate was allotted a free seat, petitioner had to deposit fees in excess of his category and requirement. Thereafter, the petitioner claimed refund of fee but when the same was not done, he approached this Court and filed this writ petition. Petition is pending since 2009 and till date no reply has been filed. However, petitioner brings to the notice of this Court orders passed in various cases, one such order is filed as Annexure P/3 passed in W.P.No.69/2008 - Mayank Jain versus State of M.P.& Others dated 17.2.2009 wherein identical question was considered and based on the merit of the candidate, it was directed that when...
Gama @ Nirmal Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of M.P
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.525/1998 Appellant :1. Gama @ Nirmal Kumar S/o Hiralal Dhimar aged about 21 years Behind Behind S.P. Bunglow, Hoshangabad 2. Prakash S/o Mohanlal aged about 22 years, Student, R/o Sadar Bazar, Hoshangabad 3. Dharmendra S/o Shankarlal aged about 22 years, R/o Kothi Bazar, Hoshangabad 4. Prakash @ Guddu s/o Ramautar R/o Kothi Bazar, Hoshangabad Vs. Respondent : The State of Madhya Pradesh Present: Hon. Shri B.D.Rathi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For appellant : Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT ( 26 /7/13) Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26.2.1998 passed by the IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T. No.170/1994 whereby all the appellants, hav...
Vishwanath Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.561/1998 Appellant : Vishwanath S/o Kabile @ Chhabile Tribe aged about 32 years R/o Bairathpur, P.S. Laur, District Rewa Vs. Respondent : The State of Madhya Pradesh Present: Hon. Shri Justice B.D.Rathi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For appellant : Shri Harish Agnihotri, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT ( 26 /7/13) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.1.1998 passed by the learned IVth Additional Session Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No.91/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 354 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and two years with fine stipulation respectively, appellant has preferred this appeal.2. According to the prosecution case, on 27.9.1995, between 6 to 7...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.6110/2012 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 all the respondents of the offences under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506B of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.).as well as acquittal of respondent nos.1 and 3 of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act.) and acquittal of respondent no.1 of the offences under Sections 494 and 323 of the IPC. The impugned judgment dated 22/2/2012 was passed by Special Judge (under the Act) at Mandla in Special Sessions Trial No.20/2011. As per the prosecution story, concealing the fact that he was already married and making the prosecutrix believe that she was lawfully married to him, respondent no.1 Rakesh persistentl...
S. Khursheed Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
R.P.NO.550/13 26/7/2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the order passed by this court on 15-05-2013 in W.P.No.9302/13 is modified and it is clarified that the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was being aggrieved by the decision of the trial court in postponing the decision on the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC and not for dismissal of the application this has been wrongly mentioned in the order. The above correction be read into the order passed on 15-05-2013 in W.P.No.9302/13 With the aforesaid modification, the review petition stands disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE hsp...
Gurucharan G Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
W.P.No.9714/2013 26.07.2013 Shri Saurabh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1,4 and 5. Shri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. This petition is purportedly filed for grant of writ of habeas corpus alleging that the major daughter of petitioner namely Ku. Sangeeta Rajbhar has been illegally confined by the respondent No.3, and even after making of complaint by the petitioner, the police authorities are not taking any action for getting her released. Upon issuance of notice of this writ petition, a report was submitted by respondents No.1,4 and 5 indicating that the daughter of the petitioner has gone on her own with respondent No.3 and as the communication has been received by the Superintendent of police that she has married respondent No.3 and was living at Banaras. A certificate of their marriage was also sent along with communication to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, by the said ...
Arti Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
W.P.No.11580/2013 (Arti Yadav versus State of MP and otheRs.26.07.2013 Shri Praveen Pandey, 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 therein,...
M/S Prithipal Singh and Company Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Arbitration Appeal No.75/2012 26/7/2013: Shri V.R.Rao, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A. Jain, for the appellant. Shri R.S.Siddique, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is made to an order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Special Court No.2, Bhopal in Arbitration Case No.11/2010 by which an award passed by an Arbitrator has been interfered with and set aside only on the ground that award has not been properly stamped and therefore, it is unsustainable. Facts that have come on record goes to show that appellant entered into a contract with respondent for the purpose of providing a road for OTM Accn Signal Regiment at Bhopal. The contract was entered in the year 2003-04 and as certain dispute arose during the execution of the contract in accordance to the arbitration agreement available, matter was referred to the Arbitrator. Arbitrator conduc...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »