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.
Smt. Jyoti Shinde Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.21774/2011 1 23.09.2013 Shri Girish Shrivastava, 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 dis...
Jitendra Rai 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...
Arunendra Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.6315/2012 1 23.09.2013 Shri Girish Shrivastava, 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 disp...
Sushil Kumar Vs. Keshwa Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
M.Cr.C.No.4571/2012 M.Cr.C.No.4571/2012 23.9.2013 Shri Ranjan Banerjee, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 16.2.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in criminal revision No.76/2011, whereby the order dated 18.1.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Sagar in criminal complaint No.3467/2010 was confirmed, whereby the learned JMFC has dismissed the application of the applicant relating to territorial jurisdiction. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the applicant published a news in his newspaper that son of the respondent got his selection as a civil Judge in the State of Chhatisgarh due to his good relations with Mr.Justice Rangnath Chandrakar. That newspaper was also circulated at Sagar. The respondent who was father of the selected candidate had filed a criminal complaint of defamation against the applicant. The applicant moved an application before the trial Court that the trial Court did not have a...
Devraj Prasad Tiwari Vs. Ramcharit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Cr.A.No.1452/2013 23.9.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant. 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 11.6.2013 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Sessions Trial No.202/2008, whereby respondent nos.1 to 5 namely Ramcharit, Sheshmani, Ramadhar, Raghupati and Geeta Devi have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307 read with 149, 325 or 325 read with 149 and 323 or 323 read with 149 (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 1/8/2005, in order to dispossess Chudamani, Shapathmuni, Devraj and Ramlal of their lands, respondents constituted an un-lawful assembly and in furtherance of its common object, not only attempted murder of Chudamani, but also caused grievous injury to Shapathmuni and injuries to Devraj and Ramlal. All the vi...
Mohan Awasthi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.12077/2011 Mohan Awasthi (since deceased), through LR : Smt. Pushpa Awasthi Vs. State of M.P. & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri Amit Seth, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER (23/09/2013) The claim made in the present writ petition by the petitioner is a direction to the respondents to pay interest on the retiral dues such as gratuity and pension, which was paid after a considerable delay. The original petitioner came before this Court ventilating his grievance that despite the orders passed by the authorities, in all matters, the payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (herein after referred to as 'DCRG') and arrears of pension amounting t...
Om Prakash Guru Vs. Smt. Chanda Bai Alias Chandrakali Mishra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Writ Petition No.14805/2013 (I) 23.09.2013 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Amit Sharma, learned PL for respondent no.2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners/defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 22.7.2013, passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Sagar in Co.No.16- A/12, whereby their application filed under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Commissioner and calling the demarcation report of the boundaries of the disputed side has been dismissed. Initially the case was argued at length by the petitioneRs.counsel, but in response of some query of the court, he apprised me that at present the case is at the stage of framing the issues or settling the issues and in such premises, evidence of the parties are yet to be recorded in the matter. On which again asking the counsel that when the evidence of the parties, is yet to be recorded, then before recordi...
Ganesh Choudhari @ Gadesh Choudhari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1845/2013 23/09/2013 Shri Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, GA for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.17433/13, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under sections 363, 366, 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years & fine of Rs.1000/-, RI for 2 years & fine of Rs.1000/- RI for 7 years & fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court committed the illegality in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that prosecutrix went with this appellant on her own accord. They travelled more than one city but she has not made complaint to anyone. It is submitted that age of prosecutrix was disputed during the trial. Mother of prosecutrix was unable to depose exact date of birth of prosecutrix. Dr. Rashmi Dhananjay admitted that colour of pubic heirs ...
Rambhau Aiskar Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.22499/2003 1 23.09.2013 Shri V.P.Nema, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State. The Original Application was filed in the year 2003 challenging the order of de-regularization of the petitioner contending that since he was regularized by an authority competent to do so, the order of de- regularization could not have been issued against him without granting an opportunity of hearing. The original application was entertained and the notices were issued to the respondents, who by filing a return have contended that since there was no regular post created in the College where the petitioner was working on the post of Driver, he has no right to be regularized on the post as was done by the Principal of the College. Thus, it is contended that there is no case made out to grant any relief to the petitioner. The State Government pursuance to the direction issued by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of K...
indra Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
WRIT PETITION No.4398/2011 1 23.09.2013 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, 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 dispo...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »