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.
Jai Singh Shikarwar Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
W.P.No.11363/2013 W.A.No.648 of 2013 W.A.No.709 o26. 07.2013 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned counsel for the respondents. I.A.No.9384/2013 is an application for amendment in the writ petition. The petitioner is seeking amendment in the petition to challenge the validity of Section 6 of the Indian Posts Office Act,1898. After arguing for sometime, he seeks to withdraw this application and submits that the main matter may be heard on merit. Prayer is not opposed. I.A.No.9384/2013 is dismissed as not pressed. This order shall decide W.P.No.11363/2013, W.A.No.709/2013 and W.A.No.648/2013 in which controveRs.involved is identical. For the convenience facts are taken from W.P.No.11363/2013. Facts of the case are that the petitioner had appeared in the Examination conducted by the M.P.Public Service Commission. After declaration of the result, the petitioner had sent documents for verification on 16.5.2013 by speed post, but the same reached in the...
Usman Khan Vs. Punna Kushwaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Cr.A.No.2972/2011 26.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J None for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent no.2-State. Record of the trial Court perused. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31/10/11 passed by Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in Sessions Trial No.339/2010, whereby respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20/4/10, complainant Usman Khan lodged a report that on the previous night, while he was asleep, rear portion of his house was set ablaze, due to which he got up and the fire was extinguished by members of the locality. He suspected that Harishchand Kushwaha and Punna Kushwaha were the miscreants as he had a dispute with them two days prior to the date of incident. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that lea...
Rajesh Raj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
W.P.No.12127/2013 (Rajesh Raj versus State of MP and otheRs.26.07.2013 Heard Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that inspite of conviction of the petitioner being set aside by Criminal Appellate Court and the matter being remanded back for retrial, the respondents who had terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground of conviction, are not reinstating him. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that the petitioner has filed a representation Annexure P/8 dated 20.11.2011 which is pending decision before the D.G.P./respondent No.2. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case without entering into the merits of the case or making any comments on the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furni...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shankar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.14927/2011 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 respondents of the offences under Sections 324 and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC.).The impugned judgment dated 19/9/2011 was passed by III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court).Katni, in Sessions Trial No.73/09. As per the prosecution story, on 4/3/2008 at about 7.30 a.m., while complainant Kamlesh was cleaning front portion of his house, respondents came there and after filthily abusing him, asked him as to why he was throwing water on the road, and thereafter started assaulting him with Hockeys and Lathis causing him injuries on left side of the head, ear, back, abdomen and private parts. When his brothers Durgesh, Sunil, Anil, mother Shyamvatibai, and sist...
Sher Singh Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Cr.A.No.2976/2011 26.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Rakesh Khare, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent no.3-State. Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 24/10/11 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No.71/2011, whereby respondent nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31/10/2010, Mastram (PW4).by way of Morgue No.58/10, informed at Police Station Bandol that a dead body was lying in the runnel situated between Nagjhar and Balpura. During investigation, the dead body was identified to be that of Sheru alias Ravishankar Baghel. Shersingh (PW1).father of Ravishankar, lodged a Dehati Nalishi at the spot, to the effect that on 29/10/2010, at 8 p.m., Rav...
Prakash Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
1 Cr.A.No.335/2007 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.335 0. 0 7 APPELLANT : Prakash S/o Amar Singh Rajpoot, aged about 32 years, R/o Village-Bhavras, P.S. Timarni, Harda, District Harda (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT : The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through - P.S. Timarni, District Harda (M.P.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.D. Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Government Advocate for the respondent /State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment reserved on :14. 05.2013 Judgment delivered on :26. 07.2013 (JUDGMENT ) Appellant Prakash has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.02.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Harda in Session Trial No.30 /2006 (State of M.P. Through P.S. Timarani vs. Prakash), whereby the appellan...
M/S Atul Construction Company Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Arbitration Appeal No.02/2013 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.36/2011 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 Married Accn for 08 Major and 104 OR 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. Arbit...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Guddu @ Bhagwandas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.9626/2013 26.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General 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).By the impugned judgment, respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 450, 376(2)(g) and 506 Part II 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 31/5/2013 was passed by Special Judge (under the Act) at Sehore in Special Case No.13/2013. As per the prosecution story, on 25/4/12, while prosecutrix, a widow belonging to scheduled tribe, was inside her tin-shade hut located in the field of Umesh Chouhan, respondent Guddu Kirar along with co-accused Radheshyam Kirar knocked her door. As she opened the door, both of them pushed and flumped her on the gro...
NasaarauddIn Vs. Dargah Subhan Allah Shah Parbandhancommittee
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
SA No.558/2013 03.07.2013 Shri V.N.Shukla, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. The judgment and decree dated 14.8.2006 was passed by the learned 10th Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.168-A/2005 against one Mohd. Mustakim in an ex-parte manner. The execution of the decree was instituted and the appellant raised objection that he was the actual tenant in the suit accommodation and his father was dependent upon him and he was residing with him. However, his father Mohd. Mustakim had expired on 22.2.2007, and therefore the decree was passed against a person, who was not the tenant. The learned 8th Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur vide order dated 16.5.2012 rejected the objection raised by the appellant. In Misc. Civil Appeal No.12/2012 the learned Third Additional District Judge, Jabalpur vide order dated 17.4.2013 dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Being aggrieved with the orders passed by the courts below, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal....
Anil Choudhary Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
W.A. No.1098 o1. Anil Choudhary vs State of Madhya Pradesh 26/07/2013 Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. I.A.No.14849/2012 for condonation of delay in filing this appeal.2. Considering the reasons stated in the application and the prayer made in the application, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. I.A.No.14849/2012 is allowed.3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.4. This appeal is directed against an order dated 13/08/2012 passed in Review Petition No.556/2012, by which, a Review Petition filed by respondent No.2 against an order dated 17/01/2011 passed in W.P.No.573/2011(S) was allowed with the following directions: It is pointed out by Shri Tiwari that while disposing of the Writ Petition No.573/2011(S) on 17.01.2011, this Court directed the applicants herein to be granted the same benefits, as has been granted to Shri Hiramani Sharma by virtue of order passed by this Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »