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.
Pradeep Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Criminal Revision No.871/2011 14.08.2013 Shri V.S.Shroti, senior counsel with Shri Ashish Shroti, Adv.for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 25.2.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhopal in Special Case No.53/10, whereby the charge of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities).Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Special Act') was framed alongwith other charges. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is prima facie apparent that the incident took place in the store of the hospital and therefore, it is nowhere established that it was a public place or it was a place which can be viewed by the public in general. Under such circumstances, prima facie, no offence punishabl...
Rajaram Garg Vs. Ambika P.Pyasi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Cr.A.No.510/2013 14.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.Deb, Government Advocate for the respondent no.10- State. Heard on I.A.No.5120/2013, 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 38 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing 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 1.10.2012 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No.280/11, whereby respondent Nos.1 to 9 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304 Part II in alternative 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of Rekha Pyasi (since deceased) was s...
Tulsi Silhare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13381/2013 Tulsi Silhare vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 14.08.2013 Heard Shri Pradeep Naveria, 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 23.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Nakshi to Gram Panchayat Bagadmara, District Balaghat. It is submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary 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 the effect that in ca...
R.P.Tiwari Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Writ Petition No.13901/2013 (R.P.Tiwari .Vs..Union of India & otheRs.14-08-2013 Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S.Siddiqui, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent No.1. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 2-8-2013 passed by the respondent No.3, by which the petitioner has been directed to join duties at CISF Unit, RCFL, Mumbai pursuant to the order dated 14-5-2013 by which the petitioner was transferred from CISF Unit, BHEL, Bhopal to Mumbai. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had filed a writ petition, W.P.No.10197/2013 against the order dated 31-5-2013 which was disposed of by this Court on 13-6-2013 with the direction to the respondent/authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representation and till then to keep the order of transfer in abeyance. It is submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10...
Surendra Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13802/2013 (S.K.Dwivedi versus State of MP and otheRs.14.08.2013 Heard Shri A.P.Singh with Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 29.07.2013 as previous order of transfer dated 03.06.2013 whereby he had been transferred as Assistant Teacher from the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Lalgaon to Government Primary School Mala Sankul Kendra Khaira has been cancelled and he has been directed to join back at Lalgaon. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial order of transfer dated 03.06.2013 had been passed on the request of the petitioner on account of the fact that he has old ailing parents with nobody to look after them but the authorities have not passed the impugned order cancelling the previous order. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the aforesaid issue requires to be considered ...
Sangharsh Mehsram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Criminal Revision No.318/2010 14.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.Deb, Government Advocate for respondent no.1-State. Shri Ramakant Patel, Advocate for respondent no.2. Heard on I.A.No.2926/10, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. As per Office note, the petition is barred by 116 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. Heard on admission. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.7.2009 passed by II Additional Judge at Waraseoni to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court).Balaghat in Sessions Trial No.191/2008, whereby respondent no.2 Sunil has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 307 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC.).but ...
Dharmendra Singh Kushwah Vs. the Registrar General
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.1730/2013 (D.S.Kushwah versus The Registrar General High Court of MP ) 14.08.2013 Heard Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming relief of rechecking of answer sheet of the written examination conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2012 for the appointment on the post of Stenographer Class-II and III (For District Court) and Stenographer Grade-III (Contract Basis).It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had participated in the said examination and done well but has been awarded 55.50% marks whereas the minimum qualifying marks for OBC category is 60%. The petitioner submits that the respondent be directed to re-examine the answer sheet as he hopes to succeed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the documents available on the record it is observed that there is nothing on record to indicate as to what is ...
Dr. N.P.Prajapati Vs. Shri Prabhanshu Kamal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 Conc. No. 823 Of 2011 14.8.2013 Shri Manoj Chansoria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Alleging willful disobedience of order passed in W.P. No. 2452/2010 (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 be...
Radheshyam Panche Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
W.P.No.13399/2013 Radheshyam Panche vs. State of M.P. & ORS.1 14.08.2013 Heard Shri Pradeep Naveria, 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 23.7.2013 by which he has been transferred as Panchayat Secretary from Gram Panchayat Mate to Gram Panchayat Bukker, District Balaghat. It is submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to Clause 4 of the transfer policy which provides for transferring a Panchayat Secretary 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 the effect that in cas...
Parmanand Kushwaha Vs. Sunil Kumar Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1 CIVIL REVISION NO.115/13. 14.8.2013. Shri Riyaz Mohd, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The presence of respondent No.2/the judgment debtor is not required to pass effective order in the revision, as such order could be passed only in presence of applicants and respondent No.1/ decree-holder. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P.L.for respondent No.3/ State. Heard on the question of admission. The applicants/ objectors have filed this revision under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Suhagpur District Hoshangabad in Civil Misc. Appeal No.3-A/12, whereby their appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (ka) of CPC has been dismissed and pursuant to that order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Suhagpur in Execution Case No.3-A/2012,dismissing the application of the applicants filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC has been affirmed. Initially the applicants'...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »