Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Pragya Mahila Bahudeshiya Sahkari Samiti Mydt. Chhatarpur Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Writ Petition No.15817/2013 25.09.2013 Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Adv for respondents. Heard. On behalf of the petitioner, Samiti, this petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- 1. To issue suitable writ/directions for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.7.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 in Pri. Kra. 699/PDS/2013 marked as Annexure P-5. 2. To issue any other suitable writ/directions deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the petition. 3. To award costs of the petition. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through he impugned order dated 23.7.2013, (Ann. P-5) issued by the SDO on the instructions of the Collector whereby the alleged fair price shop of the petitioner has been directed to be alloted to some other Samiti stating that the petitioner- Samiti through its chairman has shown its inability to run such shop and on tha...
Kailash Sakhala Vs. Smt. Bhrti Sakhala
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11222/2013 25.9.2013 Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for the applicants. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.2. Heard on admission. The applicants have moved a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.against the order dated 18.6.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Bhopal in an unregistered criminal complaint case Smt.Bharti Sakhala Vs.Kailash Sakhala and others. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent No.1 is wife of the applicant No.1 Kailash Sakhala and the applicants No.2 and 3 are close relatives of the applicant No.1. The respondent No.1 has moved a criminal complaint for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and 406 of IPC against the applicants and the learned JMFC, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 18.6.2012, by which an application under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.was accepted and the police was directed to register the FIR and to proceed with the case. After considering the submissions made by learned coun...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rambharose
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1612/2011 25.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the applicant-State. Delay, as pointed out by the Office, is hereby condoned. 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 30/7/2010 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Harda, in Sessions Trial No.48/09, whereby respondent Rambharose, though acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 294 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) has been convicted under Sections 452, 506, 323 and 324 of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 27/5/09 at 9.30 a.m., respondent not only filthily abused complainant Mukesh, but also trespassed into his house and assaulted his father Shobharam and him with an Axe. At this juncture, Arvind, Sohanlal, Gangaram and Ramdayal, reached at the spot and intervened. Thereafter, re...
Dev Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11162/2013 25.09.2013 Shri Ashish Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally with the consent of learned Panel Lawyer. The applicant has challenged the order dated 1.3.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.Bijawar, District Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No.893/11, whereby the application under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C.filed by the applicant was dismissed. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 26.3.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bijawar, District Chhatarpur in Criminal Revision No.5/12, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was also dismissed. Facts of the case, in short are that, a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC was registered against the applicant. In that case, during the investigation, a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP36 MB7326was seized, which was admi...
Badri Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.12709/2013 M.Cr.C.No.12709/2013 25.9.2013 Shri Pradeep Naveriya, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A.for the State/respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. The applicant has moved a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.to release the applicant, though he has deposited the fine amount. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 354, 323 of IPC with fine of Rs.500/-. He had deposited the fine of Rs.500/- before the trial Court. Thereafter, in criminal revision No.900/2005, vide order dated 14.5.2013, the single Bench of this Court has reduced the jail sentence of the applicant to the period which he has already undergone in the custody by enhancing fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.4,000/-. The applicant has deposited the remaining fine amount i.e.Rs.3,500/- before the trial Court on 11.9.2013. However, he was sent to the jail because fine was n...
Munnalal Saket Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.2206/2013 Munnalal Saket & another. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. None for respondents No.5 and 6. ORDER (25.9.2013) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners contending that the claim made by the petitioners for grant of minimum pay scale of the post has been denied to them, whereas, similarly situated persons have been granted the said benefit, though they were appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner. In respect of the claim made by the petitioneRs.since the directions were given by this Court, it was necessary on the part of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in appropriate manner and since the benefit of regular pay scale was made available to some of the pe...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bablu @ Kaushal Kishore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.1729/2012 26.9.2013 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 respondents namely Bablu alias Kaushal Kishore, Munnalal alias Chhote Munna and Munnalal alias HaRs.Kumar alias Bade Munna of the offences punishable under Sections 302 in alternative 302/34 and 201 in alternative 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').The corresponding judgment was passed by Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Tkamgarh in Sessions Trial No.332/05 on 29.11.2011. As per the prosecution story, during the period 31/12/01 to 2/1/02, respondents along with other accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Preetam, and in order to cause disappearance of the corresponding evidence, concealed his dead body in the hills of Kari...
Ronya Vs. Funda Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
1 W.P No.15638 of 2013 25.9.2013 Shri S.K.Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.13 Anenx.P-7 passed by II ADJ.Multai in MA No.7-A/13 affirming the order dated 7.3.13 Annex.P-6 passed by I Civil Judge-II,Multai in Co.No.3-A/13 whereby the petitioners application filed under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuing ad interim injunction restraining the respondents to interfere in possession of the petitioners with respect of the disputed land and also to restrain the revenue court to hold the proceedings filed under section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,1959 with respect of the same land, has been dismissed. 2. In the couRs.of the arguments, after arguing for some time, in response of some query of the court, petitioners counsel has made his limited prayer for appropriate direction against the respondents restraining them to transfer, alie...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramswarup Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5138/2011 25.09.13 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 27/1/2011 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No.491/2009, whereby respondent Nos.1 and 3 namely Ramrup Mishra and Mahesh Prasad Mishra, though acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC).have been convicted under Section 304 Part I read with 34 of the IPC and respondent Nos.2,4,5 and 6 namely Ramji Mishra, Ganesh Prasad Mishra, Sudama Prasad Mishra and Shanti Bai have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 15/10/2009, at about 3 p.m., respondents, being armed with La...
Rajkumar Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
W.P.No.15874/2013 25/09/2013 Shri G.R.Saket, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents/State. Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, posted in Government Girls Pre-Middle School, Nowgaon, District Sidhi vide this petition seeks direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer in the same capacity to Government Primary School, Khadihai Tola Sankul Kendrar Sursari Singh Belwa Block Sirmour, District Rewa. The transfer has been sought on the ground that the petitioner's ailing parents live at Sirmour. A No-objection certificate has been issued by the Principal, Government High School, Belwa, Sursari Singh, Block Sirmour, District Rewa on 13.08.2013. The same has also been filed by the petitioner to substantiate the claim. The petitioner admittedly has been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Government Pre-middle Girls School, Nowgaon, Rampur Nakin, District Sidhi. No rule or statutory provision is commended at a...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »