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.
Manoj Malviya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
W.P.12876/2013 (Manot Malviya versus State of M.P.& otheRs.30.07.2013 Shri Vipin Yadav with Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.07.2013 by which he has been transferred from Jabalpur to Sidhi as Deputy Collector. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that it amounts to victimization on account of frequent transfers which is violative of the transfer policy of the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel the petitioner that the petitioner was initially transferred from Narsinghpur to Mandla on 21.6.2011 and thereafter on 20.07.2012 from Mandla to Jabalpur and within a span of one year the impugned order dated 19.07.2013 has been passed transferring him from Jabalpur to Sidhi. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. A Division Bench of this Court in R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P....
Khalil Khan Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1113/1997 30.07.2013 Shri D.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. Heard finally. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2006 passed by Special Judge, Raisen in Special Case No.62/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 366 and 376(1) of I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I.for 5 years and R.I.for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. The facts, in short, are that on 06.01.1996, when prosecutrix (P.W.-1) alongwith appellant was watching the Television, at her home, at about 9 O'Clock in the night, she went out the home to answer the call of nature, appellant followed her and thereafter abducted her on the point of knife. She stayed whole night alongwith the appellant at the house of relative of the appellant, where he committed rape on her. Thereafter, appellant took her to hi...
Smt. Nidhi Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
W.P.No.12253/2013 Smt.Nidhi Agrawal vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 30.07.2013 Heard Shri A.K.Singh, 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, who has participated in the selection process for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II, has not been given appointment though she is qualified and her name has been placed in the list of candidates whose documents have not been verified. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation in this regard before the authorities on 11/7/2013 which has not been decided till date, and, therefore the authorities be directed to do so. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without entering into the merits of the case or making any comments upon the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is...
Vikas Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Cr.A.No.884/2012 29.7.2013 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri G.S.Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for the respondent- State. Heard on I.A.No.9052/13, which is an application for releasing the seized Motorcycle on supurdginama of applicant Rangad, father of appellant. On perusal of the record of the trial Court, it is revealed that Motorcycle, which is said to be used for committing the offence, was seized from the possession of appellant Vikas vide seizure memo (Ex.P/13).Learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer on the ground that the Motorcycle be given to its registered owner only. Alongwith application, photocopy of certificate of registration of seized vehicle has been filed, indicating that vehicle is registered in the name of appellant Vikas. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that being a joint family, all the members of the family use the vehicle therefore vehicle may be released in favour of Rangad. Looking to the increasing numb...
Radhika Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Cr.A.No.1690/2011 29.7.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri H.S.Dubey, Advocate for the appellants. 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 15/6/11 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat, in Sessions Trial No.22/2010, whereby respondent nos.2 & 3 namely Shivlal and Kamlesh, have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 in alternative 302/149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2/12/09 at about 9.30 a.m., while her husband Diliram along with their son Ashish had gone to the fields leaving her at home, Radhikabai was informed by her daughter Alka that Diliram had been assaulted, whereupon, she along with Alka went to the fields and found that her husband Diliram, drenched with blood, was ly...
Fakir Ram Pande Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
W.P.No.10910/2013 Fakir Ram Panda vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 29.07.2013 Heard Shri Sheshank Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.6.2013 by which he has been transferred from Umaria to the office of Dy. Commisioner, Shahdol Division. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being subjected to frequent transfers which is in violation to the transfer policy of the respondents. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority themselves by filing a representation. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a representat...
Ajay Verma Vs. Smt. Sunita Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
1 C.R.NO.155/2013. 29.7.2013. Shri V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant-husband/ defendant has filed this revision under Section 115 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2013 (Ann. P.1) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Bhopal in R.C.S.No.218-A/2012, whereby allowing the application of the respondent herein filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the applicant has been directed to pay the sum of the interim alimony to the respondent in pendency of the impugned petition filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restoration of conjugal rights. The order passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is appealable under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act r/w Section 19 of Family Court. In any case if such order is not deemed to be appealable as stated above, even then revision could not be entertained by this Court against the impugned order because on allowing this revision the proceedings pending before the trial Court under Sec...
Rajdhar Singh Baghel Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.1706/2007 (S) Rajdhar Singh Baghel (since deceased) Vs. Union of India & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Upendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Santosh Vishwakarma, learned Counsel for the respondents. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (29/07/2013) The sole question raised in the present petition is whether in view of the resignation submitted by the original petitioner, he would be entitled to grant of pensionary benefit or not. Since not the original petitioner has died during the pendency of this petition and by order of this Court, the wife of the petitioner has been substituted as legal representative, the rights are to be considered for grant of family pension as well.2. Undisputedly the original petitioner was appointed ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kummu @ Kumer Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.6262/2012 29.7.13 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 dated 26/3/12 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara in Sessions Trial No.152/10, respondents Kummu @ Kumer and Hemantsingh have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Code.) respectively. As per the prosecution story, on 9/5/10 between 8.30 to 9.30 p.m., Revaram (since deceased) was seen ploughing his field by his brother Tulsiram. Later on when Tulsiram could not contact Revaram on phone, he went to the hut situated at the field and found that Revaram was lying dead inside, having injuries on left side of his neck, left elbow, right hand, right leg, toe and waist, caused by some unknown person by sharp edged we...
Anand Kumar Pareta Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, L.i.C.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
M.C.C.No.845 / 2013 (Anand Kumar Pareta ....v.....Senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur & another) 29-07-2013 Shri Yash Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Anuj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard on the application for restoration of W.P.No.1538/1999. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that he being busy before a Division Bench of this Court, could not appear to attend hearing of the aforesaid petition when it was called for hearing on 25-6-2013 which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicants and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide and the learned counsel for the respondents submits no objection to the restoration of the petition, the application for restoration is allowed. It is directed that Writ Petition No.1538/1999 be restored to its original number. A copy of this order be placed in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »