Court : Madhya Pradesh
Cr.A.No.1448/2011 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ramakant Patel, Advocate for respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2. Shri M.Shafiqullah and Mohd. Riyaz, Advocates for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for respondent no.5-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 10/5/11 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.296/10, whereby respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been acquitted of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17/3/09, respondent no.1 Dhanveer Singh, dishonestly induced complainant Deewan Singh Rajput to deliver his Indo Farm Tractor on rental of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
AdaRs.Rajabhoj Shikshan Samiti versus National Council For Teachers Education & Ors.W.P. No ::18411. 31. 07.2013. Shri Pramod Thakre, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner had filed this writ petition challenging the action of the National Council for Teachers Education in the matter of approval being granted to the institute in question. During the couRs.of hearing of the writ petition and on perusal of certain factual assertion made in an application seeking amendment vide I.A.No.10195/2013 it is seen that during pendency of the petition an order has been passed on 21.6.2013 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval have been rejected and thereafter petitioner has preferred an appeal before an appropriate standing appeals committee constituted under Section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act and the appeal is pending before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Cr.A.No.1679/2012 31.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Satendra Singh Tiwari, Advocates for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.4-State. Heard on I.A.No.17564/12, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 40 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 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 25/4/12 passed by XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.332/2011, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 in alternative 302/34 and 364 in alternative 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3/4/11 at about 9.50 a.m., a repor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.12363/2013 (U.K.Tiwari versus J.Cement) 31.07.2013 Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length submits that the present petition be disposed of with a direction to the Labour Court, Satna to decide the Case No.11/ID Act/2013 pending before it within a specific period of time. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner moves an application for urgent hearing, the concerned Labour Court shall consider the same and thereafter proceed to decide the matter as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months thereafter. With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.1339531. 7/2013: Shri R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. Jyotishi, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Petitioner was a student who was admitted to the B.E.CouRs.conducted by the Rajeev Gandhi Pradyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal. Petitioner was admitted to the CouRs.in the year 2000 and as per clause 5.3 of the Ordinance applicable to the University the duration of the couRs.was 8 yeaRs.Petitioner appeared in the final year 7th Semester B.E.Mechanical Engineering Examination which was conducted in December 2008 and is said to have failed in one of the subject. Thereafter petitioner was given a special mercy last attempt in which also he is said to have failed. However, when the petitioner's result for the subject in question i.e.Heat and Mass Transfer which was held on 9.6.2009 and when his result was not declared, he has filed this writ petition and the prayer made is that the result of the examination held on 9.6.2009 for the 7th Semester B.E.Examination in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
M.A.No.3377/2009 31/07/2013. Shri Pramesh Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Yaduvendra Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri N.S.Ruprah, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Heard on IA No.9283/2009, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of more than 8 yeaRs.The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The aforesaid application for condonation of delay has been filed on the ground that the appellants engaged to Shri U.C.Thakur, Advocate as his counsel before the learned Tribunal and handed over him the relevant documents including driving licence. Shri U.C.Thakur, Advocate was also the counsel for the Insurance Company and in 12 cases arising out of the same accident, compromise was arrived in Lok Adalat and the counsel for the appellants had also assured the appellants that their claim shall also be settled in the Lok Adalat. However, the matter was not settled in the Lok Adalat and awa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
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/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
M.C.C.No.922/2013 31.07.2013 Mr.S.K.Garg, learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents were not represented as the case has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Heard on I.A.No.8356/2013, an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration is made out. The delay is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.8356/2013 is allowed. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and taking into account the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient cause for restoration of the second appeal is made out. Accordingly, the S.A.No.664/2001 is restored to file subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in the office of the M.P.High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of 10 days. According...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Revision No.04/2005 31/07/2013 Shri J.K.Verma, counsel for the applicant. Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate, for the State. None for the respondents No.1 and 2. Applicant Ku. Nirupma Poddar is present before this Court. She has been identified by her counsel Shri J.K.Verma. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 18th August, 2004 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khandwa in Misc. Criminal Case No.51/2004 whereby the learned Magistrate ordered for appearance of applicant. In short the facts of the case are that applicant, aged about about 27 yeaRs.happened to be the daughter of non- applicant No.1 Mohan Prasad Poddar. On 23.3.2003, she left her house and went to some unknown destination. In this regard, a missing report was lodged by Mohan Prasad Poddar on 8.1.2004 at Police Station Moghat Road, Khandwa and a case was registered. It was suspected that UtkaRs.Datt Malviya, non-applicant No.2, had abducted applicant. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, after...
Tag this Judgment!