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. Mahendra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.9627/2013 22.7.13 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 30/4/13 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No.374/10, respondent Nos.1 and 3 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Code.) and respondent no.2 of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. However, respondent no.2 has been convicted under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly. As per the prosecution story, on 28/2/10 at about 1 a.m., respondent no.1 Mahendra, took the prosecutrix to a nearby Mandir on the pretense that she was being called by her brother Mukesh. As she reached the Mandir, she found that respondent nos.2 and 3 viz. Halle and Ramkumar were already presen...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sagar Patidar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.9453/2013 22.7.13 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) against the acquittal the respondent namely Sagar Patidar of the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(1).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 brevity the Act.).The impugned judgment dated 31/5/2013 was passed by Special Judge (under the Act).Sehore, in Special Case No.9/13. As per the prosecution story, on 25/8/12, at about 10.30 p.m., the respondent trespassed into the house of the prosecutrix, a member of scheduled caste and subjected her to rape, and also threatened to kill her. FiRs.Information Report (Ex.P/9) was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was ...
M.L. Kori Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.No.10745/2013 (M.L.Kori versus State of MP and another) 22.07.2013 Heard Shri P. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby after conducting enquiry, penalty of recovery of Rs.9,70,079/- has been imposed upon the petitioner which has been directed to be recovered in instalments of Rs.20,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, the enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner of all charges but the disciplinary authority contrary to the provisions of the Rule 15 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and without recording any reason for disagreement or giving any opportunity to the petitioner in that regard, has directly imposed the aforesaid penalty which is...
Shesh Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.7949/2013 22.07.2013 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate for the State. Heard. On the request of learned counsel of both the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. Petitioner/accused has filed this petition challenging the order dated 5.3.2013 passed in Special Case No.2/2012 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) Act, Satna whereby the application filed by petitioner under section 311 of Cr.P.C.for recalling PW-6 Munna Kol has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Munna Kol (PW-6) was examined by the prosecution on 6.12.2012. Though he was declared hostile, but he was cross-examined by junior Advocate Smt. Sapna Singh and that the case is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence. Petitioner moved an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C.on the ground that since senior Advocate was not available on 6.12.2012, the effective cross- examination could not be d...
Amitesh Soni Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.No.11947/2013 (Amitesh Soni versus Union of India and otheRs.22.07.2013 Shri Ishan Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority of the University bringing his grievance to their notice. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days from today, the authority concerned shall look into the grievance of the petitioner, examine it and thereafter pass a reasoned order expeditiously, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Ravi Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
W.P.No.12110/2013 (Ravi Tiwari versus State of MP and otheRs.22.07.2013 Shri V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority or competent authority for revocation of his suspension. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner approaches the competent authority along with the order passed today and a copy of the petition within 15 days from today, he shall consider the application for revocation of suspension and pass orders thereon expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months thereafter. However, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the revocation application by passing a reasoned order. With the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petitio...
Laqshya Digital Media Private Ltd. Vs. Bhaskar Industries Private Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR COMPANY PETITION No.7 OF 201.Laqshya Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. versus Bhaskar Industries Pvt. Ltd. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra MeNo................................................................................................. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. ................................................................................................ ORDER (19/07/2013) This application has been filed under Section 391 of the Companies Act in the matter of scheme for amalgamation between Transferor Company Laqshya Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. and the Applicant Company Bhaskar Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Bhopal.2. It is pointed out that this application has been filed seeking permission for dispensation from convening the meeting of the Secured Creditors, Unsecured Creditors, Preference Shareholders and Equity Shareholders of the Resulting Company. Dispensation is also sought from convening the meeting or claiming compensati...
Ram Sewak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
M. Cr.C.No.8443/13 19/07/13 Shri Alok Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. This application is the second application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The fiRs.application M. Cr.C.No.15220/12 was dismissed by this Court on 5/02/13. Now, again anticipatory bail is sought for on the ground that some communication has been made by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Tendukheda vide Annexure A-3 dated 17/01/13 and, therefore, the allegations levelled against the applicant is not correct. Merely, because some communication is made, I see no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The bail application having already been rejected on merit, no case is made out for any further indulgence. The application is therefore dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Vimal Kishore Swami Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.9609/2012 Vimal Kishore Swami Vs State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Ashish K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents. ORDER (19.7.2013) The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the order dated 21.5.2012, by which juniors to the petitioner have been promoted on the post of Executive Engineer in Water Resources Department, but the petitioner is found unfit for such promotion. It is contended by the petitioner that the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings were downloaded by the petitioner and it was found by him that though in the said Departmental Promotion Committee dated 5.5.2012, the name of the petitioner was considered, but only because of an Annual Confidential Report of the year 2010, which is said to be adverse, the petitioner was found unfit for promotion. It is contended that the petit...
Sewak Ram and anr. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-19-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.235/1998 Appellant :1. Sewakram Banjare S/o Jeewanram aged about 48 years, R/o 703 D/A, Sector Piplani, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. Awadhram S/o Anandram Bharadraj aged about 52 years R/o 10-8, Ambedkar Colony Purana Subhashnagar Bhopal (M.P.) Vs. Respondent : The State of Madhya Pradesh For appellant : Ms. Manisha Shrivastava For the respondent : Shri B.D.Singh, Government Advocate JUDGMENT ( 19 /7/13) The appellants have been convicted for an offence under section 27 of the M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (for short the Adhiniyam.) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for three months. The impugned judgment dated 9/12/1997 was passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.115/93. At the relevant point of time, appellants were respectively working as President and Secretary of Sarvodaya Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Bairagarh (hereinafter referred to as the...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »