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.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rajesh Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.12216/2012 30.9.2013 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 respondents Rajesh Sharma and Neeraj Shrivastava of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC. The impugned judgment was passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.364/09 on 15/5/2012. Prosecution case, in brief, is that during the period 1/1/2008 to 22/10/2008, respondents Rajesh and Neeraj, while respectively working as Office Executive and Account Executive at Satpura Bhavan, IInd Floor, Sanchalanalay Swasthya Seva, Bhopal and having been entrusted with official records and files, committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the same and caused financial loss to the State. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed wit...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kadeer Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 WA No.845/13 & WA No.850/13 30.09.2013. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy AG for the appellants/State. Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondents. This order shall dispose of WA No.850/13 and WA No.845/13. IA No.12066/13 & IA No.12105/13 , for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the applications supported by affidavits, prayer made in the applications are allowed. Delay in filing this appeals are condoned. Heard on admission. These appeals are directed against Orders dated 25.07.12 and 09.05.13 passed in WP No.9842/12 (s) and WP No.8663/13 respectively by which writ Court allowed the writ petitions and benefit of 2nd Kramonnati was extended to the respondents. It is submitted by the appellants that identical matter has been decided by a Division Bench, and similar directions may be issued in the present cases as SLP against leading case in Writ Appeal No.282/10 (State of M.P.and ORS.versus Vajra Sen Jain) decided on 9.2.11 is pending before the Apex Court. Pra...
Chhohanlal Vs. Board of Recenue M.P. Gwalior
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 W.P.No.15945/2013, 30.9.2013. Shri Akhil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The presence of respondent No.1 to 5 are not required to hear on the question of admission. Hence, notice against such respondents are hereby deferred. Shri P.S.Gaharwar, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 5.7.2013 (Ann. P.9) passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision No.429-II/01 affirming the order dated 4.1.2001 passed by the Upper Commissioner, Rewa in Revenue Appeal No.42/Appeal/98- 99 setting aside the order dated 23.12.1996 passed by S.D.O. Singrauli in Revenue appeal No.12/A6/96-97, whereby by allowing such appeal of the present petitioner the order of Tahsildar passed regarding mutation was set aside. Initially the case was argued at length but in the available circumstances on asking the petitioner's counsel that how the disp...
Rai Singh Machhirke Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Civil Revision 1344/1996 30/9/2013: Shri V.R.Rao, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Kapil Jain for the petitioner. Shri Devashish Sakalkar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. This revision petition under Section 19 of the M.P.Madhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 has been filed by the petitioner challenging an award passed by M.P.Arbitration Tribunal on 20.2.1996 in Claim Case No.31/1990. Even though various grounds are raised in the claim petition and referred to in the award, during the couRs.of hearing of this revision petition, Shri V.R.Rao, learned Senior Counsel limited the claim to the extent of the finding recorded by the Arbitration Tribunal in para 42 of the impugned award. It was pointed out by Shri V.R.Rao, that after evaluating the claim the learned Tribunal found that while settling the final bill of the petitioner sum of Rs.57,544/- was incorrectly paid by the State Government to the petitioner. After adjusting this amount and after holding that the petitioner is on...
Ajay Prasad Mishra Vs. Shri B.L.Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Conc. No.456/2013 (Ajay Prasad Mishra ..Vs..Shri B.L.Mishra & another) 30-09-2013 Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the this petition for non- compliance and disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.20572/2012, dated 14-12-2012 which was disposed of without entering into the merits of the case with a direction to the concerned Sub Divisional Officer to see that his order is complied in full with respect to reinstatement and payment of wages to the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in view of the notice issued by this Court the respondents have filed a return alongwith a copy of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, dated 24-4-2012, much prior to the passing of the order by this Court in W.P.No.20572/2012, whereby the order of reinstatement issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. It is ...
M.L. Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
WRIT PETITION No.20966/2011 1 30.09.2013 Shri M.P.Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner has approached this Court ventilating his grievance that he is not being paid the wages for the period he has worked, by the respondent No.3 and though some honorarium is paid to one Mr.S.S.Garg, the amount which was required to be paid to the petitioner has not been paid to him. It is contended by the petitioner that he was made to work for removal of certain audit objections raised by the Auditors in respect of the audit of accounts of respondent Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa. As agreed, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was required to be paid to the petitioner as fourth installment but the said amount is not paid to the petitioner, on the other hand the whole amount is paid to Mr.S.S.Garg. That being so, this writ petition is required to be f...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pannalal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
M.Cr.C.No.3087/2012 30.9.13 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 11/10/2011 passed by II Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, in Sessions Trial No.141/2007, whereby respondent Pannalal has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 148, 307/149, 307 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/3/2007 at about 4 p.m., respondent along with co-accused Babulal, Vijay, Dilip and Shiv, being armed with deadly wepons viz. Sword and Lathi, constituted an un-lawful assembly and in furtherance of its common object, not only filthily abused the complainant and her family membeRs.but also attempted murder of Rajesh by inflicting him ...
M/S R.B. Overseas (Pvt. Ltd) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 W.P.No.16278/13. 30.9.2013. Shri Sanjay Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2013 passed by the S.D.O.Jabalpur in Revenue Appeal No.134/A-6/2011- 12 dismissing his appeal filed under Section 44 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (In short the Code).and affirming the order dated 12.6.2012 passed by the Tahsildar in Revenue Case No.130- A/2009-10. In the couRs.of argument in view of provision of Section 44 of the Code on asking the petitioner's counsel that the impugned order being passed in Revenue Appeal by the S.D.O. against which remedy of second appeal before the Commissioner of Revenue is available to the petitioner, how this petition could be entertained, on which the petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the second appeal before the aforesaid Commissioner with a fur...
Narendra Pandagre Vs. Sandeep Upadhyay
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11493/2013 30.09.2013 Shri Vikas Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission as well as I.A.No.19777/2013, an application for staying the complaint case. The facts of the case, in short are that, the applicant is an accused in a criminal trial pending against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The applicant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.on 29.4.2013. Thereafter, six opportunities were given to produce the defence evidence but he could not complete the defence evidence and ultimately, his right of defence evidence was closed. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that the appropriate opportunities were given by the trial Court to produce the defence evidence. On six various dates, he produced some witnesses but he did not give the name of the witnesses for whom, he was seeking the adjournment and no any process fee was deposited in issuance of summon for a particu...
Shyamlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Criminal Revision No.1555/2013 30.09.2013 Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri C.K.Mishra, G.A.for respondent/State. Shri B.R.Koshta, Advocate for the complainant. Applicant No.2 Premlal and complainant Smt. Budhiyabai are present in person. They are identified by their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.No.18599/2013, an application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding the offence. Applicants and complainant submitted that they have settled their dispute out of the Court, they have entered into a compromise and now they want to live peacefully, therefore, permission be granted to compromise the matter. I have perused the impugned judgment, wherein applicants have been convicted under 324/34 of the I.P.C.and the same is non-compoundable by the amendment dated 23.01.2006. In the circumstances, complainant cannot be permitted to enter into a compromise with the applicant. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the the fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »