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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vikram Alias Bhikhari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4956/2012 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to file appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22/1/2012 passed by Sessions Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa, in Sessions Trial No.169/11, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13/8/11 Geetabai (since deceased) had left her house for Lakhangaon but did not return and next day, her dead body in an injured condition was found in the field of Vikram Rajput. Morgue intimation (Ex.P/2) was recorded, crime was registered and during investigation, it was found that she was having illicit relations with the respondent and on the same day, both had gone together to the house of Bhika alias Bhiku at Gopulapura in Village Lakhangaon and ...
Charu Siksha Samiti Registered Society Under Society Act. Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.14206/2013 26/8/2013: Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents on advance notice. Challenging the order dated 6.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Higher Education refusing permission to the petitioner's society to establish a College for the purpose of imparting education in various Degree Courses namely, B.Co.(Computer).B.C.A.and B.B.A., petitioner had filed this writ petition. It transpires during the couRs.of hearing that against the order passed by respondent No.2 in accordance to statute No.27 pertaining to admission of the colleges and institute to the privileges of the University and its withdrawal thereof, if an application is rejected by the Commissioner, Higher Education, an appeal is provided against such refusal to the State Government. Even though records indicate that petitioner has submitted two representations to the competent authority of the State Government but conside...
Suresh Kumar Moolchandani Vs. Municipal Council
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 Writ Petition No.6505/2013 26.08.2013 Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.R.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. Petitioner seeks direction for refund of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 30.12.2012, as also refund of Rs.1,704/- charged towards occupation charges. The background facts are that in pursuance to a unanimous decision taken in a meeting held on 28.07.2011 between the shopkeepers of the Sarni and the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad Bhamani Banjar, that the shopkeepers shall vacate the premises to facilitate construction of new shopping complex in Nagar Parishad, the shopkeepers on entering into with agreement will each be allotted the shops for which they will have to deposit Rs.60,000/- for bigger shop 2 Writ Petition No.6505/2013 and Rs.30,000/- for small shop towards their share. However, no agreement to that effect was entered into. That, on completion of the new shopping complex petitioner, one of the o...
Ashok Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Cr.A.No.923/2013 26.8.2013 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Himanshu Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, 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 being aggrieved with the judgment dated 20/2/2013 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.149/11, whereby respondent No.2 Makhan @ Makhu Yadav has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6/4/11 at about 7 a.m., consequent upon an altercation as to entering of buffalo belonging to Jagatraj (since deceased) in the field of Amar Singh, when Jagatraj along with Anil reached near the field of Mahadev Sahu, Amar Singh, armed with an Axe and other accused armed with Lathi, Danda and Axe came from behind, and started assaulting Jagatraj. They also rushed to assault Anil, but h...
Sundari Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Cr.A.No.1501/2013 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri R.S.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, 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 14/05/13 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, in Sessions Trial No.109/2012, whereby respondents No.3 to 5 namely Krishnadas, Mahendradas and Chand alias Chandrakali have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 302 read with 34 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and respondent No.2 Sagardas, while being acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, was convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19/07/2012 at about 2 pm., when complainant Kalludas had gone to the shop of one Surendra for purchasing Bidi, respondents Sagardas, Krishna...
Anjana Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
MCC No.1008/2013 (Anjana Chaturvedi versus State of MP and otheRs.26.08.2013 Heard Shri S.P.Pandey, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.12195/2013(S).It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the applicant herself appeared in the case on 12.07.2013 on account of strike of the advocates when the peremptory order was passed but could not inform her counsel about the same which resulted in dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition for non-compliance of the peremptory order. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant and for the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.07.2013 passed in W.P.No.12195/13(S) is recalled and the same is directed to be restored to its original number subject to payment of cost Rs.500/- in the High Court Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in ...
Ramashray Vs. Ravikaran Choudhary @ Munnilal Choudhary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
M.A.No.885/12. 26/8/2013. Mr.Saket Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.D. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent no.1 Heard on admission. This Miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Satna (MP) in Civil Suit No.66-A/10, by which while disposing of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC, the learned trial court has believed after consideration of the fact that the registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the appellant and ordered restraining alienation of the suit property and restraining the defendants from making substantial construction over the suit property. The suit property has been purchased by the defendants by the registered sale deed while the claim of the plaintiff is based on registered Will executed after execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the property purchased by the registered sale deed...
Mahendra Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 M.C.C. No.1336/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA M.C.C. No.1336 / 2005 APPLICANT: Mehendra Kumar S/o. Late Shri Bhola Ram R/o. New Sabji Mandi, Bhopal (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: Union of India Through General Manager Central Raiway, CSTM, Mumbai --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant by Shri Rahul Choubey, Advocate. Respondent by Shri Govind Patel, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (26.08.2013) This review application has been filed against the order dated 13.04.2005 passed by this Court in Misc. Appeal No.12457/1997 whereby the appeal of the applicant was dismissed on the basis of preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for respondent that because the Railway Administration has not been sued in terms of Section 3(6) of the Railways Act, 1890 (in short Act of 1890.), the cla...
Motilal Vs. Suresh Verma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Cr.A.No.2532/2011 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri B.P.Pathak, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.8-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 4.8.2010 passed by I Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.168/2009, whereby respondent Nos.2 to 7 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 in alternative 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and respondent no.1, while being acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, was convicted under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC. As per the prosecution story, respondents 1 to 7 were involved in subjecting Shakuntala (since deceased) to cruelty and harassment due to not satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, on 18.6.2009 dead body of Shakuntala, under...
Ku. Ranjana Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
WRIT PETITION No.14526/20126. 08.2013 Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the controveRs.involved in the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others versus State of M.P.And others [2012 (2) MPLJ 605 ., wherein only this much was directed that the respondents are directed to examine the requirement of refixation of honorarium in the present days of price hike. It is contended that a writ petition was earlier filed by the said person which was decided and subsequently the order passed in the said writ petition was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as also in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, though the writ petition filed by Gopal Chawla and others (supra) subsequently was...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »