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.
Smt. Kiran JaIn Vs. Choudhary Anand Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
MCC No.894/2013 26/8/2013: Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondents. This application has been filed for restoration of F.A.No.234/2008 which was dismissed for not compliance of the Court's order. Even though notices have been issued to the respondents and they have been served and represented by counsel, none is appearing for the respondents. There being some delay in filing the application I.A.No.7950/2013 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Delay and default is explained by attributing some lapses on the part of counsel and his clerk. Application is supported by an affidavit of the clerk of counsel and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Finding the same to be bonafide, both the applications are allowed. Condoning the application in filing the application, the restoration application itself is allowed. FiRs.Appeal is restored to its original number. It be placed for orders before the appropriate Bench. Application stands allo...
Naval Singh Meena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.14193/2013 (N.S.Meena versus State of MP and another) 26.08.2013 Heard Shri A.P.Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 06.08.2013 on the ground that it amounts to frequent transfers and has been issued without permitting the petitioner to complete his three years tenure in the place of posting. The petitioner alleges that he has been transferred in violation of the transfer policy. A Division Bench of this Court in 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, without entering 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 files a represent...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mithlesh Bairagi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.2783/2012 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 16/12/2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen in Sessions Trial No.98/2011, whereby respondent namely Mithlesh Bairagi has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18/2/2011 at about 9.15 p.m., when complainant Rajesh Yadav was exercising in the Arena (Akhada).the respondent came and while abusing, challenged him. Complainant asked him to come inside for talking and on this the respondent, brought an Axe, and dealt it on his right palm leading to injury on his middle finger. Rakesh Yadav and Amit Rathore came at the spot and intervened. While leaving, respondent threatened to kill in cas...
Raju Prasad Sahu Vs. Maniram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Cr.A.No.2756/2011 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J None for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.6-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 30.3.2010 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Session Trial Nos.281/2001 & 282/2001, whereby respondent no.3 has been acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34, whereas respondent Nos.1,2,4 and 5 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 in alternative 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/4/1998, respondent Nos.1 to 5 threw the dead body of Munnalal (since deceased) on the Railway Track at Tehraka, after killing him with an Axe. Alternatively, it was pleaded that Munnalal was subjected to cruelty and harassment to such an extent that he was lef...
Chhatrapal Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.14077/2013 (Chhatrapal Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.26.08.2013 Heard L.N.Sakle, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.07.2013 by which his initial order of transfer dated 12.07.2013 transferring him as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kautheha to Gram Panchayat Mudhara Janpad Panchayat Barigarh District Chhatarpur has been modified after being executed and he has not been directed to join at Gram Panchayat Kitpura, Janpad Panchayat Barigarh, instead of Gram Panchayat Mudhara, where he has already submitted his joining. It is submitted that the initial transfer order cannot be modified within a short span of period. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also alleges violation of the other clauses of the p...
Sakoor Mohammad Vs. Mst. Sugga
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Second Appeal No.227/2013 26.08.2013 Mr.R.L.Ariha, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr.R.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondent. Let the records of Courts below be requisitioned. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that before service of notice on merit, the cross-objection was already filed, therefore, the same is not barred by limitation. In view of aforesaid submission, office objection is ignored. It is further submitted that looking to the nature of the relief claimed in cross-objection, the relief claimed in cross-objection has not been valued. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted one week time in order to enable him to address this Court on aforesaid aspect. As prayed, let the appeal be listed after 10 days. Interim order dated 15.3.2013 shall continue till the next date of hearing. (Alok Aradhe) Judge RC...
Annat Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
MCC No.1017/2013 (A.K.Patel 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.13164/13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the counsel for the applicant was out of station he could not appear on 13.08.2013 when the case for called for hearing which resulted in dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition for want of prosecution. The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant and the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2013 passed in W.P.No.13164/2013 is recalled and the same is directed to be restored to its original number. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.13164/13. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Raghava Bhan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
1 WA No.776/13 26.08.2013. Shri S.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for appellant. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. This appeal is directed against an Order dated 14.05.13 passed in WP No.6258/10 by which the writ Court has directed thus :- Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 is not considering the case of the petitioner for regularization after taking note of the order passed by the Industrial Court in the case of the petitioner and the directions issued by the Industrial Court in the said case. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1.the Circulars issued therein and the order passed by the Industrial Court and take a decision within a period of three months from the date of ...
Maniram Kulaste Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
W.P.No.13812/2013 Maniram Kulaste vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 26.08.2013 Heard Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Patwar Singarpur to Gram Panchayat Chichouli, Janpad Panchayat Nainpur, District Mandla. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also alleges violation of the other clauses of the policy. 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, ...
Prem Narayan Vs. Girish
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
Cr.A.No.1702/2011 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J None for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.5-State. Delay, if any, in preferring 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 09/03/2010 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act.).at Sagar in Special Case No.09/2008, whereby respondent Nos.1 to 4 namely Girish, Pancham Singh, Dulichand and Kamlesh have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and Section 3(2) (v) of the Act. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/08/2007, Sunil (since deceased).who had gone to purchase medicines with Ballu alias Balram, returned home and apprised his father viz. complainant Premnarayan th...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »