Madhya Pradesh Court August 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.
Mangleshwar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
Mangleshwar Mishra versus State of M.P.Review Petition No ::752. 27. 08.2013. Shri Dharmesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 to 4. None appears for respondent No.9, even though served, represented by counsel and reply filed. Seeking review/recall of an order dated 26.10.2010 passed in W.P.No.133/2010(s).this application has been filed for review. Applicant herein, Shri Mangleshwar Mishra was respondent No.7 in W.P.No.133/2010(s).In the said writ petition dispute was with regard to appointment of Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary to the Panchayat in question namely Gram Panchayat Sohagpur, in Janpad Panchayat Sohagpur, Tehsil Sohagpur, District Shahdol. It seems that with regard to appointment of Panchayat Karmi/Panchayat Secretary certain dispute was raised by the original petitioner Shri Sitaram Napit before the S.D.O.The S.D.O.passed an order on 8.11.2007 and interfered into the process of selec...
Naeem Ullah Khan Vs. Smt. Dr. Kumkum Leela
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1239/2013 27.08.2013 Shri Imtiaz Husain, Advocate for the applicants. Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, Advocate for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. By the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.applicants have challenged the order dated 9.4.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Bairasia District Bhopal in Criminal Case No.216/2012 whereby the case was registered under Section 420 of IPC against the applicants. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent and the applicants entered into a contract for sale of 91 acres of land. A sale deed was executed for 15 acres of land and for remaining 81 acres of land a dispute was initiated. The applicants gave a notice on 11.3.2010 through their Advocate Sayyed Salmal Alvi that remaining payment be made within the stipulated period otherwise applicants would be free to sell the land to someone else. The respondent also gave a reply to the notice. Thereafter the land was sold to someone else, the...
Harivinayak Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
W.P.No.13804/2013 (Harivinayak Mishra..versus State of MP and otheRs.27-08-2013 Heard Mrs.S.Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12-7-2013 by which he has been transferred as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bheda, Janpad Panchayat Maihar to Gram Panchayat Argat, Janpad Panchayat Ramnagar. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been working at the aforeasaid Gram Panchayat since the date of his appointment i.e.20-10-1995.It is alleged that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy formulated by the State Government under M.P.Panchayatraj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 as the policy states that the Panchayat Secretary should be transferred to nearby Gram Panchayat or to the adjacent Gram Panchayat which has not been done in the present case. A Division Bench of this Court in R.S.Chaudhary ...
Ramashankar Vs. Rajbahadur Dwivedi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.393/2012 Ramashankar & others. VERSUS Rajbahadur Dwivedi. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Akhil Singh, counsel for the applicants. Shri Prakash Upadhyaya, counsel for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 27th day of August, 2013) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 6.2.2012 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in criminal revision No.404/2008, whereby the order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the learned JMFC, Teonthar, District Rewa (Shri Arun Kumar Singh) was set aside and the trial Court was directed to get the 'Will' examined by the hand-writing expert and to pass a fresh order, according to law.2. The prosecutions case, in short, is that, the complainant/respondent has filed a criminal complaint...
Punaram Shivne Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
W.P.No.13805/2013 (Punaram Shivne..versus State of MP and otheRs.27-08-2013 Heard Shri Ajay Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12-7-2013 by which he has been transferred as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Digdha to Gram Panchayat Arjuni Janpad Panchayat Katangi, District Balaghat. It is alleged that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy formulated by the State Government under M.P.Panchayatraj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 as the policy states that the Panchayat Secretary should be transferred to nearby Gram Panchayat or to the adjacent Gram Panchayat which has not been done in the present case and the petitioner has been transferred 50 K.Ms.away from his present place of posting causing immense hardship to the petitioner in the mid academic session. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already filed a representation...
Tikaram and anr. Vs. Somasav and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.769/2005 Tikaram s/o. Nasaram Dhuvare Vs. Somasav s/o. Karusav Kalar Counsel for the appellants : Mr. B.R. Vijaywar, Advocate. Counsel for the respondents : Mr. B.M. Prasad, Advocate. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (27.08.2013) This appeal is by the plaintiffs. A Bench of this Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether Courts below have committed error in dismissing the suit of the appellant taking into consideration the other suit filed by the deceased defendant Soma Sau against the then recorded Bhoomi- swami Digamber and Yuvraj for declaration and injunction claiming the right under the provision of M.P. Vas-sthan Dekhalkar (Bhumiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1980 ?. 2 S . A . No 6. 9 0. 2. Whether the first appellate Court has committed error in dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking the ...
Molai Sahu Vs. Pooran Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
Civil Revision No.149 o27. 08.2013 Shri D.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the applicant. This case is listed for appropriate order on the question of maintainability of this revision. Instead to argue the case on such question, the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this revision with liberty to file miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923 to challenge the impugned order as the same is made appealable under such provision with further prayer for extending the liberty to the applicant to file such appeal alongwith an application under Section 5, r/w Section 14 of the Limitation Act with further prayer to return the certified copy of the impugned order enabling the applicant to file the aforesaid appeal. Considering the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this revision is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to file an appeal to the applicant against the impugned order dated 5.12.2012, (An...
Smt. Mohan Bai Vs. Mahaveer Singh Jat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
Cr.A.No.2059/2013 27.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Neetiraj Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for respondent no.2- 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 20.2.2013 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.98/2013, whereby respondent no.1 has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that prosecutrix wrote a letter to Superintendent of Police, Bhopal to the effect that she was resident of Geeta Nagar Colony, Vidisha Road, Bhopal and three years back, respondent no.1, who was Assistant Sub Inspector in Railway Police Force, Bhopal had tried to falsely implicate her son Ashish in a case of theft and when she reached the police station, after some inquiry, her son was r...
Virendra Kumar Gautam Vs. the State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
1 W.P. No.6231/01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.6231 of 2001 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Petitioners :1. Virendra Kumar Gautam S/o late Shri Ramanuj Gautam, R/o Village Barehi, Post Office Raipur Karchulian, Police Station and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian, District Rewa, M.P.2. Vinot Kumar, S/o late Shri Ramanuj Gautam, R/o Village Barehi, Post Office Raipur Karchulian, Police Station and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian, District Rewa, M.P.3. Smt. Rajwati (Dead) through LRs:- (i) Rajendra Prasad Pandey, S/o Late Devendra Kumar Pandey, R/o Dwari, Tahsil Curh, District Rewa (ii) Rakesh Kumar Pandey, S/o Rajendra Prasad Pandey, R/o Dwari, Tahsil Curh, District Rewa (iii) Vivek Kumar Pandey, S/o Rajendra Prasad Pandey, R/o Dwari, Tahsil Curh, District Rewa (iv) Smt. Sangita D/o Rajendra Prasad Pandey, R/o Dwari, Tahsil Curh, District Rewa (v) Smt. Anita D/o Rajendra Prasad Pandey, R/o Dwari, Tahsil Curh, District Rewa 2 W.P. No.6231/01 4. S...
Rajendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1370/2012 27.08.2013 Shri Ashish Sinha, Advocate for the applicants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State. Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nishant Datt, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. By the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.applicants have challenged the proceeding of a criminal complaint pending before the committal Court, Bhopal. The prosecution case, in short, is that the respondent No.2 has moved a criminal complaint against the applicants and other persons for the offence punishable under Sections 191, 415, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of IPC on the ground that the document of contract of sale deed dated 25.5.2005 was forged. The committal Court registered the case for the offence under Sections 420 and 467 of IPC. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the fiRs.objection of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »