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. Khubilal @ Pappu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.14129/2011 22.8.2013 Shri S.k.Kashyap, Government Advocate 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) against the acquittal of respondent, Khubilal @ Pappu for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').The corresponding judgment was passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in S.T.No.69/2011 on 26.8.2011. As per the prosecution story, on 5.11.2011 at about 8 am Maan Singh Korkoo, had come to the house of one Rayali bai asking for wages and had left after a while. About half an hour thereafter, he was again seeing running towards the house of Rayali Bai while crying for help and was being chased by Kailash Korkoo and Pappu Chowkidar. In front of the house of Rayalibai, Pappu caught hold of Maan Singh by his shirt and Kailash gave 2-3 Paati (wooden plank) blows du...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vikas Alias Chikki Jat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.9664/2012 22.8.2013 Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the applicant-State. Heard on I.A.No.16712/2012, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this application for leave to appeal. As per Office note, the application is barred by 180 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the application is, hereby condoned. 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) against the acquittal of respondent no.1, Vikas @ Chikki Jat of the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').respondent no.2, Sarman Singh of the offence punishable under Section 392/34 of the IPC and respondent no.3, Mahesh Prasad of the offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC. The corresponding judgment was passed by IVth Additional Session...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Pande
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
State of M.P.& ORS.versus Smt. Meenakshi Pande Writ Appeal No ::668. 22. 08.2013. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri R.D.Hundikar, learned counsel for respondent. Challenging the order, interlocutory in nature dated 18.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.15181/2005, whereby in a pending writ petition the learned writ court has directed the respondents to hold the review DPC and consider the case of petitioner for grant of promotion on the next higher post, this writ appeal has been filed. Even though a preliminary objection has been raised with regard to maintainability of this writ appeal on the ground that against the preliminary order the writ appeal is not maintainable. But the fact remains that a Bench of this Court has already held that if the interlocutory order has the effect of deciding the rights of parties finally, the writ appeal is maintainable. In the present case, by directing the respondents to convene a review DPC and granting promotion to the ...
Premlal Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
W.P.No.13984/2013 Premlal Yadav vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 22.08.2013 Heard Shri Devendra Gangrade, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 12.7.2013 and 27.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Kupi to Gram Panchayat Patra. It is submitted that the impugned order of transfer is violative of Clause 4 and other clauses of the transfer policy which provides that a Panchayat Secretary can only be transferred to an adjacent Gram Panchayat. 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...
Narendra Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
(1) W.P.No.18691/2011 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Writ Petition No.18691 of 2011 Narendra Kumar Soni Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others. ________________________________________________ Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State/respondents. Writ Petition No.1097 of 2012 (S) Anil Kumar Kushwaha Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others. ________________________________________________ Shri S.R.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State/respondents. Writ Petition No.1152 of 2012 Triloki Nath Gupta Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others. ________________________________________________ Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State/respondents. Writ Petition No.2223 of 2012 Sanjay Kumar Singh (2) W.P.No.18691/2011 Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others. ____________________________________________...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pyarelal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4404/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 5/1/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Begamgunj, District Raisen, in Sessions Trial No.250/2009, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent leveled baseless allegations of theft upon Bhure and his father and feeling humiliated, Bhure committed suicide by hanging from a Tree. Report of the incident was lodged by his father Sunderlal, wherein he stated that Bhure had committed suicide consequent upon his slapping. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh Kushwaha Alias Lallu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1985/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate 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) against the acquittal of respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.) and Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act.).The corresponding judgment was passed by Special Judge (under the Act).at Satna in Special Case No.74/2009 on 14.9.2011. Prosecution case, in brief, is that when the prosecutrix was alone, respondent entered into her house in the absence of her parents and committed rape upon her. On opposing, the accused threatened to kill her. After this incident, he used to commit rape upon her after every two to three days on the pretext of marriage and impregnated her. F...
Gireesh Goutam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
W.P.No.13998/2013 (Gireesh Goutam versus State of MP and another) 22.08.2013 Heard Shri Shyam Yadav, 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 respondents/authorities are not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (LDC) and Subedar (Stenographer) by treating him as an over age candidate and are not granting age relaxation to him in accordance with clause 1.2 of the advertisement dated 02.02.2013 according to which the petitioner, who was working else where previously, is entitled to age relaxation up to 36 yeaRs.It is observed that the petitioner without approaching the authorities has directly filed the present petition before this court which is not permissible in law. In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case or making any comments on the entitlement of the petitioner, the petition filed ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Motilal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10167/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 28/6/2012 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No.657/09, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Section 419, in alternative, 419/34 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.).Prosecution case, in brief, is that, Ghanshyam, brother of complainant Ramesh Prasad Dubey along with the respondents and other accused persons, in furtherance of a conspiracy to misappropriate 0.40 hectares of land belonging to the complainant, impersonated as complainant and executed a sale deed corresponding to the said land in favour of respondent no.2 Kasturi Bai by affixing his photograph on the same. Learned Government Advocate s...
Lalluram Kori Vs. Anil Kumar Tiwari and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Second Appeal No.904/1998 Lallooram s/o. Halkeram Kori Vs. Anil Kumar Tiwari & 2 Others. Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Atul Anand Awasthy, Advocate with Mrs. Shweta Gupta, Advocate. Counsel for the respondents : None. Present : Honble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe JUDGMENT (22.08.2013) This appeal is by the defendant, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff claiming relief of permanent injunction only was maintainable without claiming relief of possession in view of their own pleading that the defendants have encroached and have taken possession of the suit land ?. (ii) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the suit land was of the 2 S . A . No 0. 4 9. 9 8 ownership of respondent, is legally sustainable ?..2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiffs filed a suit on the ground that the plaintiffs pur...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »