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.
Guman Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JUDICATOR AT JABALPUR Division Bench :- Hon. Shri Justice U.C. Maheshwari & Hon. Mrs. Justice Vimla Jain Misc. Criminal Case NO.144/2013. Guman Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh For applicant : Shri Kunal Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Vikram Singh, Standing counsel CBI. ORDER (17.07.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. The applicant/ accused has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (For short the Code.), being aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by Special Judge, CBI Jabalpur in Special Case No.13/2009, whereby his application filed under Section 207 of the Code for appropriate direction to the respondent/prosecution to provide him mirror copy of the electronic documents has been dismissed.2. The applicant's counsel after taking us through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on record and the copy of the aforesaid application dated 31.10.2012 (Ann. A.2), argued that according to the ...
Sarwangini Bisen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
W.P.No.11379/2013 Sarwangini Bisen vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 17.07.2013 Heard Shri Paritosh Trivedi 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 the petitioner has been denied appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III by stating that the person who has appeared in the examination is the petitioner whose name is Sarwangini Bisen whereas the certificates are that of Sarita Chouhan. The petitioner submits that the petitioner's maiden name is Sarita Chouhan however after marriage her name has been changed to Sarwangini Bisen but the authorities, without taking the aforesaid aspect into consideration, are not giving her joining. The petitioner has filed various documents in support of her statement. However, after having perused the petition it does not appear that all the aforesaid aspects were ever placed before the authorities or that the authority concerned...
Smt. Ruchi Mishra Vs. Rajiv Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
Smt. Ruchi Mishra versus Rajiv Mishra FiRs.Appeal No ::238. 17. 07.2013. Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant along with appellant in person. Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent along with respondent in person. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur on 14.2.2013 allowing the suit filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolve the marriage between the parties, this appeal has been filed by the appellant wife. It is seen that during the pendency of the appeal, parties had mutually negotiated the matter and, therefore, I.A.No.7103/2013 has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC and annexed thereto as I.A.No.7105/2013 an application for compromise regarding the memorandum of compromise between the parties. Parties had agreed to settle the dispute and appellant accept the decree of dissolution passed by the learned court below and the said decr...
Balchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CIVIL REVISION NO.269/2007 Kammod (deceased) Through L.Rs. Smt. Kashibai and two others -VERSUS- Balmukund and two others ................................................................................................. Shri Ajay Sharma, counsel for the applicants. Shri Pranay Verma, counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.3/State. .................................................................................................... JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 17th day of July, 2013) The applicant has moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C to set aside the exparte decree dated 14.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge Class I, Sagar at Bina. Such application which was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed on 31.1.2007. A Miscellaneous Appeal No.4/2007...
Rajendra Markam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
1 W.A.No.653/2013 Rajendra Markam State of M.P.& others 17.7.2013 Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal, Counsel for appellant. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Vijay Shukla, Counsel for respondent No.3. This appeal is directed against an order dated 5.7.2013 in Writ Petition No.11222/2013 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant against an order dated 25.6.2013 transferring the appellant from Chhindwara to Jabalpur as Senior Sub-Registrar was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to submit a representation against the transfer order. This order has been assailed by the appellant on following grounds:- (I) That, the appellant was promoted and posted at Chhindwara only on 10.1.2013 vide order Annexure P/1, but within a period of 6 months, he has been transferred from Chhindwara to Jabalpur. (ii) That, the order has been passed just to accommodate respondent No.3 who was promoted as Senior Sub-Registrar and was transferred and posted at Chhindwara. It is submit...
Mahesh Kumar Athya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.18356/2010 (O.A.No.3571/2002) Mahesh Kumar Athya Vs State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents-State. ORDER (17.07.2013) This petition was filed initially as Original Application NO.3571/2002 before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur, by the petitioner, challenging the order of his compulsory retirement issued on 28.9.2002. Since an interim stay was granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner has continued in the service throughout till he attained the normal age of superannuation. However, after passing certain orders for production of record, it appears that the Original Application was treated to be finally disposed of, by the staff of the Tribunal, the same was deposited in the record room of the Tribunal as disposed of case. After abolition of the Tribunal, such cases were transferred ...
Kanchan Babotkar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
Cr.A.No.1726/2013 17.7.2013 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred by the prosecutrix under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara on 22/5/2013 in Sessions Trial No.120/2013, whereby respondent Rajesh has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that instead of taking cognizance under Section 354 of IPC, learned trial Court has wrongly taken cognizance under Section 376 IPC and the respondent should have been punished under Section 354 of the IPC. We have gone through the impugned judgment. In para 5 thereof, it is mentioned that prosec...
Bablu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8243/2013 M.Cr.C.No.8243/2013 17.7.2013 Shri Pradeep Naveriya, counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicants have moved the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.against the order dated 13.6.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni in criminal revision No.60/2013, whereby the application of the applicant relating to supurdginama of various bullocks was dismissed. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 9.5.2013, the accused Bhikharilal and Gendlal were found with 9 bullocks. They were taking those bullocks to Maharashtra and therefore, a case for offence punishable under section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and sections 4, 6 and 9 of M.P.Co.Slaughter Prohibition Act was registered. The applicants moved an application for supurdginama of the bullocks on the ground that they purchased those...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vishnu Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.9163/2013 17.7.2013 Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on I.A.No.16218/13, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. As per office note, this appeal is time barred by 90 days. Looking to the facts mentioned in the application, we are of the view that the same deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. 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 of respondent of the charge under Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.).By the impugned judgment the Special Judge (under the Act) at Hoshangabad, in Special Case No.94/2012 has convicted the respondent under Section 302 (on two counts) and Section 397 of the IPC and sentenc...
Anupriya Parashar Vs. Barkatulla University
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2013
Anupriya Parashar versus Barkatulla University and another.W.P. No.10214/13 17/07/13 Shri Aditya Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents/university. This writ petition has been filed and the following reliefs are claimed :- 1. To direct the petitioner to appear in the examination of B.A.LL.B.Part V Part II.2. To direct the Respondent to declare the examination Result of all the semesters appeared by the petitioners under the directions passed in W.P.No.362/12. As far as relief No.1 with regard to permitting the petitioner to appear in the examination is concerned, the said prayer has been rendered infructuous with the passage of time. As far as the second relief is concerned, it pertains to certain interim order passed in W.P.No.362/12 and it is not stated by Shri Aditya Narayan that this writ petition is disposed of. If that be so, petitioner should seek modification or clarification of the order passed in the said ...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »