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.
Anil Kumar Godre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
M.Cr.C.No.564/2011 24.9.2013 Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the learned JMFC, Sagar in criminal case No.1057/2010, whereby the application under section 319 of the Cr.P.C.filed by the respondent No.2 was allowed against the applicant and he was added as an accused. The facts of the case, in short, are that, one Abdul Rasheed had lodged an FIR against the applicant and the respondent No.2 for offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 471, 483 of IPC at Police Station Gopalganj, District Sagar. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.2 only. After filing of the charge-sheet, the learned JMFC took cognizance against the respondent No.2 only. Thereafter, an application under section 319 of the Cr.P.C.was moved by the respondent No.2 that the applicant may a...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brijnandan Saket
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
MA No.3333/2009. 24/09/2013. Mr.Suresh Raj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.K.Rohan, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr.Uttam Maheshwari, Advocate for the respondent No.3. This case has been listed for final hearing at motion stage. This appeal has been filed under section 30 (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 which involves following substantial question of law :- Whether the learned Commissioner is justified in passing the impugned award against the appellant overlooking the evidence that the claimant Brijnandan Saket was not on duty on the date of incident dated 26.10.2003?. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Co.has submitted that the muster roll produced before the Commissioner shows that on 26.10.2003 there was weekly holiday and therefore, the claimant was not on duty. It is further submitted that the claimant has produced the evidence with regard to treatment given by Dr. Charulata who had treated him from 6.4.2005 i.e.after about 2 years of the incidence. Th...
Subhash Kumar Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Writ Petition No.16485/2005 Subhash Kumar Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. Shri K.N. Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. ORDER (24.09.2013) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner initially claimed a relief of direction to the respondents to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the DPC for brevity) and to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of retrospective promotion. The petitioner has also claimed quashment of proceedings of D.P.C. dated 09.05.2005 as also quashment of orders dated 16.05.2005 and 09.12.1998. It is contended by the petitioner that in terms of the provisions of the Rules governing the services, the petitioner had attained the eligibility to be considered for promotion after completing three years of s...
Prahlad Vs. the State of Mp.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR (M.P.) Criminal Appeal No.1607/1996 PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. Solanki Prahlad S/o Badri Prasad Upadhyay Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Umesh Trivedi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.K. Mishra, GA for the State. Shri S.D. Mishra, Advocate for the complainant.. Date of hearing:24. 09.2013 Date of Judgment:24. 09.2013 JUDGMENT The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 12.9.1996 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities Act) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Mandla in Special Case No.33/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 250/- and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 250/- i...
State of M.P. Vs. Narendra Parmar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5813/2008 24.9.2013 Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/ applicant. Heard on admission. This application for grant of special leave to appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of respondents of the charges under sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of prosecution was that about two years prior to the date of incident Reena was married to respondent no.1 Narendra Parmar in a mass community marriage ceremony. Respondent no.2 Smt. Vinita is sister of respondent no.1. Reena sustained about 85% burn injuries on 17.6.2007 and died on 19.6.2007 during her treatment in the hospital. During investigation, the statements of relatives of Reena were recorded wherein they stated that she died an unnatural death because she was being subjected to cruelty for not bringing appropriate dowry. Dying declaration, Ex.P11, of Reena was recorded by Naib Tahsildar on 18.6.2007. Reena in her dying declaration stat...
Ramayan Prasad Yadav Vs. Ashish Kumar Shukla
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
M.A.No.248/2010 24/9/2013 Shri A.D.Mishra, Adv.for the appellant. None for respondent nos.1 and 2. Shri T.S.Lamba, Adv.for the respondent no.3. Case is listed for final hearing at motion stage. Arguments heard. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 23.6.2009 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.77/08 by learned MACT, Rewa (M.P.) for enhancement of compensation. The respondent no.3 Insurance Company has also filed cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the pay and recover order passed in the award against the Insurance Company on the ground that deceased was travelling on the Tractor and no premium for passenger has been taken by the Insurance Company. Further, the tractor was driven by the driver without driving licence, therefore, there was breach of policy conditions. So far as award amount is concerned, as the deceased Rajkumari Yadav @ Pinku @ Gudiya was aged 19 years at ...
Guddu @ Shailendra Saini Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
[1]. Criminal Appeal No.196/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.196/1997 Guddu @ Shailendra Saini Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT [24.9.2013].1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by conviction and sentence recorded by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.180/95 vide judgment dated 28.11.1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(1) of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years with fine of ` 2,000/-, with default stipulation.2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 18.12.1994 at about 7.00 PM, when the prosecutrix (PW-8) was alone in her house, she was called by the appellant, who was standing on the terrace of the house of Ram Lakhan Sharma (PW-1). The prosecutrix had gone there and thereafter it is alleged that the appellant initially...
Kumari Ranjana Agarwal Vs. Ramesh Patel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
M.A.No.1730/2007 24/9/2013 Smt. Devika Singh, Adv.for the appellant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Adv.for the respondent/Insurance Company. Case is listed for final disposal at motion stage. Arguments heard. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 16.1.2007 passed by learned IX Addl. MACT, Jabalpur in Motor Vehicle Case No.131/2005 for enhancement of award amount. The appellant who was about 10 years of age at the time of accident and sustained head injury in the accident has been awarded an amount of Rs.1,94,000/- as compensation by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the after effects of the injury sustained by the victim which has resulted in non-functioning of his one side of the body, loss of voice and the victim has become mentally retarded due to injury sustained by her. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards the ordersheet ...
Ravikant Pardhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
M.Cr.C.Nos.4243/2013 & 5023/2013 23.09.2013 Shri Sanjay Singh, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.D.Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. Since both the petitions are connected with the same crime therefore, decided by a common order. The facts of the case are that on 17.2.2012, an FIR was lodged by the officers of the State Bank of India that the accused persons namely Manoj Singh Dhurve and Mukesh Kardade brought 89 fake currency notes of denomination of `500/- and therefore, they tried to deposit a sum of `44,500/- in the State Bank of India. It was found that the accused Mukesh took the currency from the applicants, who are the officers of Indusind Bank. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants received the sum from Kantilal Rana as well as Gyaniram and they have accepted that the fake currency was deposited by these persons therefore, there was no fault of the applicants. On the other hand, the learned Government Advoca...
Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.7780/2011 1 23.09.2013 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. It is contended by learned Counsel for the parties that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court, Bench at Indore, in W.P.No.7675/2011 (S).Diwakar Rao Rojaskar versus The State of M.P.& another, decided on 26.08.2013. It is not in dispute that after examining the records of the examination, this Court has reached to the conclusion that the allegations of irregularities committed in conducting the examination and declaring the results of persons like petitioner are serious in nature and, therefore, this Court has directed that revaluation of the answer-sheets of the persons like petitioner be conducted by constituting a two members independent Committee. In view of this, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition can be disposed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »