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.
Raja Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Criminal Revision No.2094/2011 14.08.2013 Shri Sameer Seth, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State. Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a typing error in framing of charge No.4. Looking to the language of the charge No.4, it appears that it is framed for the offence punishable under Section 307/149 of IPC, whereas it was mentioned that the charges framed for the offence punishable under Section 323/149 of IPC. Under such circumstances, the present revision is hereby disposed off with a direction that the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen shall modify the charge No.4 and main charge of the offence under Section 307 of IPC be framed and in alternate charge...
S.K. Samanta and Company Ltd Vs. Northern Coalfields Limited
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.1060/2013 14/08/2013 Shri G.N.Purohit, learned Sr.counsel with Shri Abhishek Oswal, for the petitioner. Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the rejoinder filed today, learned counsel for the respondents wants 10 days' time to file additional return. Let additional return be filed on or before 30th of August, 2013 along with a copy to learned counsel for the petitioner. List the matter for final disposal at motion stage on 10th of September, 2013. Till the next date, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents and status-quo in the matter shall be maintained. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) (Mrs.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge nd...
Dr. (Smt.) Bhawna Bhadoriya Vs. Shri Prabhanshu Kamal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Conc. No. 830 Of 2011 14.8.2013 Shri Manoj Chansoria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order passed in W.P. No. 2444/2010 (S), present contempt petition has been filed. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada and another . The decision in Dr. (Smt.) Seema Raizada (supra) travelled to Supreme Court and the entire case was reopened by Supreme Court and the matter was remanded back to this Court whereon the same was reconsidered and decided on 4.4.2012 in the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit . State of M.P. (W.P. No. 2742/2012) along with other 80 writ petitions. That, being so petitioner will have to seek benefit in acc...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Betulal Ahirwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.6234/2009 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi, J. Shri A.K.Sharma, Government Advocate for the applicant- State. Heard on I.A.No.8398/2009, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this appeal. As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 238 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the leave 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 respondents 1 to 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498-A of the IPC. The corresponding judgment was passed by Session Judge, Panna, in S.T.No.27/2008 on 2.8.2008. Marriage of Bhuribai (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Betulal Ahirwar two years prior to the date of incident. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are respectively his mother and relative. As per ...
Pradeep Kumar JaIn Vs. Sahdeo Prasad Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Cr.R.No.1797/2009 14.8.2013 Shri Mahesh Acharya, counsel for the applicant. Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Nishant Datt, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has challenged the order dated 9.10.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Revision No.40/2009 whereby the matter was remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur with the direction that registration of the complaint may be considered against the applicant also. The facts of the case are that some of the accused persons were residing in the house whereas it was given on rent by the complainant. Thereafter, they claimed that they were the owners of the house and they did not vacate. Consequently, a complaint was moved by the complainant relating to offence punishable under Section 465, 467, 468 of I.P.C etc.After considering the evidence under section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur has registered a complaint...
Gangaram Sahu Vs. National thermal Power Corporation Vindhyachal Distt ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13333/2013 (Gangaram Sahu versus National Thermal Power and otheRs.14.08.2013 Shri G.R.Saket, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.C.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 07.09.2011 by which the petitioner who is a Junior Operator in the establishment of the respondents, has been suspended. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was suspended on serious allegations, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner after a lapse of one year of the order of suspension and the enquiry is not being conducted expeditiously as a result of which the petitioner is suffering a lot. It is further submitted that the petitioner has deposited the amount, which was shown excess in his account, with the respondents and has also filed an application which has been marked as Annexure P/9 for revo...
Shripat Garg Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Criminal Revision No.729/2006 Criminal Revision No.729/2006 14.8.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate along with Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants have challenged the order dated 8.4.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna in Special case No.6/2006, whereby the charges of offence punishable under section 382 of IPC and sections 3 (1) (v) & (x).3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'Special Act') were framed against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants were in possession of the property. They had an injunction order of the civil Court in their favour and therefore, no charge under section 3 (1) (v) of the Special Act or section 382 of IPC could be framed against the applicants. FIR is also lodged with dela...
Rajnish Kumar Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13296/2013 (R.K.Tripathi and others versus State of MP and otheRs.14.08.2013 Heard Shri Arpan Shrivstava, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioners have filed this petition alleging that they have not been permitted to participate in the fiRs.round of counselling of the recruitment process of the Contractual Teacher Grade-III on account of the fact that marksheet of the D.Ed. has been issued late. On the basis of aforesaid submission the petitioners pray that they be permitted to participate in the fiRs.round of the counselling. The matter as to whether the petitioners hold the requisite qualifications in accordance with law on the cut off date prescribed or as to whether they are otherwise qualified in accordance with the rules, is required to be examined by the authorities. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioners file a repres...
Shiv Prasad Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13298/2013 (S.P.Sahu versus State of MP and otheRs.14.08.2013 Heard Shri Arpan Shrivstava, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that he has not been permitted to participate in the fiRs.round of counselling of the recruitment process of the Contractual Teacher Grade-III on account of the fact that the marksheet of the D.Ed. examination has been issued late. On the basis of aforesaid submission the petitioner prays that he be permitted to participate in the fiRs.round of the counselling. The matter as to whether the petitioner holds the requisite qualifications in accordance with law on the cut off date prescribed or as to whether he is otherwise qualified in accordance with the rules, is required to be examined by the authorities. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a representation a...
Pooran @ Pooran Singh Vs. Koran Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
C R No.2145/98 14.8.2013 Shri Sharad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. This civil revision of the year 1998, is listed today for appropriate order on the question of default regarding payment of process fee for issuing the notices to the respondents. On perusing the earlier order sheets, I have found that still this matter is yet to be heard on the question of admission. So, before passing any order on the question of default, I deem fit to hear the same on the question of admission. Thus the applicants counsel is directed to make the submission on admission. He is heard at length. ORDER The applicant/plaintiff has filed this revision being aggrieved by the orders dated 20.7.1998 and 5.8.1998 passed by VIIIth Civil Judge Class-II Bhopal in Civil Original Suit No.20-A/97 whereby, allowing the application of the respondent no.1 filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, the exparte order passed against him has been set aside and he is permitted to prosecute this case with a right to fil...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »