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.
Garibdas @ Pappu Choudhari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
[1]. Criminal Appeal No.1993/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR DB : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava & Hon'ble Shri Justice G.S. Solanki Criminal Appeal No.1993/2005 Appellant: Garibdas @ Pappu Choudhari S/o Shri Bhaddilal Choudhari, R/o Village Chhaprat, Police Station - Shahpura District- Jabalpur Versus Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh _________________________________________________________________________ Shri Ramakant Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sudesh Verma, Public Prosecutor for the State. ___________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [20.9.2013]. Per : A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.9.2005 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.88/2004 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer Life Imprisonment and fine of `5000/-; in default further R.I. for 5 months, the appellan...
Jagdish Dubey Vs. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
1 W.P.No.15321/13. 20.9.2013. Smt. Arpana Nakra, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 14.8.2013 (Ann. P.1) passed by 3rd Civil Judge, Class-II, Damoh in Civil Suit No.1-A/13, whereby their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that in the absence of the State of Madhya Pradesh as party on record in the suit is not entertainable, has been dismissed. Initially the case was argued at length but in view of settled proposition of law that plaintiff is sole dominus-litus of his litigation, he could not be insisted either by the Court or the other side to implead any person in the suit as party unless compelling circumstances are available in the matter, which is not the situation in the case at hand and in the lack of any necessary party on consideration the suit of the plaintiff may be d...
M/S Rama Traders Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Agro Industries Development ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
1 M/s Rama Traders versus Madhya Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation.A.C. No.10/13 20/09/13 Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for the non-applicant. This application has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal for resolution of the dispute between the parties. Applicant herein M/s Rama Traders is a proprietary concerned having its office in Tulsi Nagar, Bhopal and this application is filed by the Proprietor Smt. Saroj Gupta. It is the case of the applicant that M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation is an instrumentality of the state and is assigned and appointed as a Nodal agency in the matter of job inviting rate contract offers in respect of seeds and supply of the same to various authorities and departments of the State Govt. It is said that the agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the said corpo...
Jagan Prasad Dhulia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
Jagan Prasad Dhulia and others versus State of M.P.and others.R.P. No.599/12 20/09/13 Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents/State. Inter alia contending that on wrong factual aspects of the matter being brought to the notice of this Court, W.P.No.5216/96 has been disposed of by this Court on 15/03/12 without adverting to consider the correct facts, this application is filed for review/recall of an order. Shri D.K.Tripathi points out that taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil versus Additional Commissioner and otheRs.A.I.R. 1995 S.C.94 , the writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to appear before the High Power Committee constituted by the State Govt. and the High Power Committee directed to resolve the issue. Shri Tripathi submitted that infact the matter was already considered by the High Power Committee and vide order dated 3/03/04, the High Power C...
Ajay Narang Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
1 Writ Petition No.17383/2010 20.09.2013 Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Priyankush Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The petitioner confines his challenge to the order dated 09.07.2010 whereby the Revisional Authority has dismissed the petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam, 1973) on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the appellate order passed by the Director on an appeal preferred by respondent No.5 against the order of rejection of application for sanction of layout. Section 32 of 1973 Adhiniyam stipulates: 32. Revision.- The State Government may, at any time, but not later than twelve months of the passing of the order, on its own 2 Writ Petition No.17383/2010 motion or on an application filed by the person aggrieved by any order...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Umesh Kol @ Chhotu Kol
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5861/2013 20.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General 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 22/12/2012 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court).Mauganj, District Rewa, in Sessions Trial No.133/2012, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14/11/2011 at Village Arjunpur, dead body of Laxman Gupta was seen by the Villagers lying in the field of Muniraj Singh. Intimation of the same was given by Shivkumar Gupta at Police Station Hanumana upon which Morgue Intimation No.73/2011 was recorded and Crime No.352/2011 was registered against unknown persons and after investigation, respondents were apprehe...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. EjajuddIn Alias Golu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.280/2013 20.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General 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 11/10/2012 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.227/11 whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26/12/10 at about 9.30 p.m., respondent filthily abused complainant Mohd. Abid while he was standing near Vishal Marriage Hall and upon his objection Shahdjad, younger brother of the respondent also came there and started abusing him and, thereafter, respondent, with intention to cause his death, stabbed him in the stomach. Report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Hanumanganj, whereupon Crime wa...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhagwati Prasad @ Manoj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.6682/2011 20.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, 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 16/3/2011 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.483/2009, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC).Marriage of Anita Kushwaha (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Bhagwati Prasad alias Manoj about two years prior to the date of incident. Other respondents are his family membeRs.Prosecution case, in brief is that, respondents were involved in subjecting Anita to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and ultimately, on 7/5/2009, under suspicious circumstances, Anita died of burn injuries in her m...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hariram Lodhi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
M.Cr.C.No.7445/2013 20.9.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned 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 2.3.2013 passed by the Special Sessions Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act)).Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No.26/2011, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Act') and Section 3(2)(5) of the Act. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23/5/11 at about 12 noon, near the nursery of Forest Department at Village Nadiya, respondent subjected the prosecutrix, a married lady aged about 32 years and a member of scheduled tribe, to rape. Report (Ex.P/1) of the incident was lodged the next day upon which C...
Shaniram Vishwakarma Vs. Murlidhar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
Writ Petition No.14526/11 20.09.2013 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. The petitioner/defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 2.8.2011 (Annexure-P-9) passed by IIIrd Civil Judge Class-I Chhindwara, whereby his applications (i) filed under Order 7 Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking the annexed documents on record and (ii) an application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Commissioner to call the Commissioner Report of the disputed site, have been dismissed. Petitioners counsel after taking me through the impugned order along with the papers placed on the record argued that, the documents filed along with aforesaid earlier application were relevant and most of them were rent receipts which have been issued by the respondent and the same were necessary to prove the factum of possession of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »