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.
Pushpendra Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
W.P.No.20571/2012 31.7.2013 Parties present. It is submitted by Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Addl. A.G., that the report of Town and Country Planning and Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Jabalpur, as was directed on 16.1.2013, has already been filed. The petitioner who is present in person submitted that he may be allowed some time to file documents showing existence of water body on the disputed spot. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.4 submitted that infact it is not a water body, but is collection of water because earlier there was mine in existence and after closure of mine water has collected. Shri Kaurav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State shall ascertain the period of existence of collection of water on the spot and to state this fact on oath, within a period of one week by filing the same on record. Be listed for hearing on 3.9.2013. C.C., as per rules. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (U.C.Maheshwari) Acting Chief Justice Judge M....
Rachana Gurjar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Cr.A.No.527/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Devendra Singh Baghel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-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 30/12/11 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar, in Sessions Trial No.364/2010, whereby respondent nos.2 to 9 have been acquitted of the offences charged with. Prosecution case in brief is that, on 19/12/08, when the prosecutrix was going in an Autorickshaw to her college, a boy on a Motorcycle came to her and on the pretense that her brother had met with an accident took her to board a White Marshal instructing its driver to leave her at Civil Hospital. As she sat in the vehicle, she found that it was preoccupied by four people and she was driven to a lone place, where the boy, who had dropped her on Motorcycle, wa...
In Reference Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
W.P.No.10931/2013 31.7.2013 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Sanjay Agarwal and Ms.P.Dubey, as Amicus Curiae in the matter. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A., for State of M.P.It is stated by the parties that one more matter is pending before Gwalior Bench for the same cause of action and both the matters may be heard analogously. It is also submitted by Shri P.K.Kaurav that he has also filed a matter relating to disaster management at Jabalpur, which is registered as M.C.C.No.2795/2006. Considering aforesaid, we direct the office to place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders for analogous hearing of all the matteRs.on administrative side. At this stage, Shri Siddiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that he may be allowed four weeks time to submit a composite report in respect of the steps taken by the Central Government for providing relief in case of any disaster b...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Satish Sagar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.9973/2013 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, 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).By the impugned judgment dated 30/3/13 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.689/11, respondent has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.).Prosecution case, in brief, is that since 11/9/09 during the period when prosecutrix was staying with her uncle Satish for prosecuting her studies at Bhopal, he persistently subjected her to sexual intercouRs.for a period of two yeaRs.On 26/2/11 when she returned home, she apprised her parents and, thereafter, report (Ex.P/1) was lodged at Police Station Ranjhi for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed. Learned Government Advocate, while making re...
Pradeep Kashiv Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
M.C.C.No ::423. / 2013 Pradeep Kashiv versus Union of India and others 31.07.2013. Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Sinha, counsel for the respondents. This application has been filed for restoration of Writ Petition (S) No.2516/2005, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.2.2013. Default on the part of the counsel for non-appearance is explained by pointing out that the counsel had met with some accident and due to his personal difficulties, he could not appear. The application is supported by affidavit of the counsel himself and we see no reason to dis-believe the same. In view of the above, this application is allowed. Writ Petition (S) No.2516/2005 is restored to its original file. It be placed for orders before Appropriate Bench. Accordingly, the application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. ( RAJENDRA MENo.) ( SMT. VIMLA JAIN ) JUDGE JUDGE Aks/-...
Rajesh Thapak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
W.P.No.12369/2013 (Rajesh Thapak versus State of MP and otheRs.31.07.2013 Heard Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.06.2013 passed by the respondents/authorities whereby the representation of the petitioner claiming absorption in government service has been rejected after considering the same in compliance of the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.16844/12 disposed of on 08.10.2012. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that he was engaged in the census duties in the year 1991 and thereafter, on completion of the census work he was disengaged, however, the Government took a decision on 20.01.2006 to place such census employees in B-1 category and to give them preference in appointment. The petitioner after a long lapse of 21 years had filed a writ petition which was registered as W.P.No.16844/12 claiming absorption. In the said petition, though t...
Smt. Banti Dikar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Writ Petition No.12101/2013 (Smt. Banti Dikar versus State of M.P.& otheRs.31-07-2013 Shri Bhoopesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Jain, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. Heard the learned appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length, submits that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to take up scrutiny of the cases in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Appeal No.1202/2010 decided on 15-12-2010 and also give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before the scrutiny committee to establish that his appointment may be irregular at best but not illegal and thereafter take a decision in the matter expeditiously in accordance with law within a fixed period of time. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the authorities have in fact passed the impugned order dated 31-5-2013/0-6-2013 with a view to ensure...
Ramkrishna Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Writ Petition No.13043 / 2013 (Ramkrishna Mishra..Vs..State of MP & otheRs.31-07-2013 Shri Brahmendra Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.MPS Chuckal, learned P.L.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 29-6-2013 by which the petitioner has been transferred as Deputy Director (Udyan).Satna to District Singrauli. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order of transfer of the petitioner has been passed only to accommodate respondent No.5 contrary to the policy of the State Government inasmuch as the petitioner on being promoted on his post been posted at Satna on 1-5-2013 and after a lapse of one month he has been transferred out only to accommodate respondent No.5 whose name in fact should have been dropped on account of the fact that he has not joined at the place of posting at Singrauli after his promotion. A Division Bench of this Court in...
Sonu Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
Cr.A.No.541/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Aditya Adhikari and Shri Ritwari Parashar, Advocates for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-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 20/1/12 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.356/2010, whereby respondent no.2 has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.8.09, at about 2.00 p.m., when the prosecutrix was returning from Howbag College, Jabalpur in a Rickshaw, respondent no.2 Sachin Shrivastava along with his associates Chintu, Ravi, Raman and Shrikant came in a red coloured Bolero Jeep and intercepted the Rickshaw. Alighting from the Jeep, he asked the prosecutrix to marry him and on her denial, ...
Rajjan Prasad Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-2013
W.P.No.12495/2013 (Rajjan Prasad Dixit versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 31.7.2013 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents No.4 to 7 have encroached upon the Government land for which he has moved an application before the Tahsildar, Panagar, District Jabalpur for removal of the encroachment, but no proper action has been taken and the proceedings are pending before the Tahsildar since 31-5-2012. It is submitted that in spite of order passed by the Collector, Jabalpur in that regard, no appropriate steps have been taken by the respondent No.3, Tahsildar, Panagar, District Jabalpur and the Tahsildar may be directed to decide the proceedings expeditiously. From a perusal of the record, we find that the petitioner before approaching this Court has not approached to the Collector, Jabalpur, respondent No.2 herein, for issuance of directions to the Tah...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »