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.
Dinesh M. Patel Vs. Rajesh Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 W.P No.14912 of 2013 30.9.2013 Smt Janavi Pandit, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ravishankar Yadav, counsel for the respondent In the available circumstances, instead to hear this petition on the question of admission only, with the consent of the parties, the same is heard on merits. Heard.2. Petitioners/ defendants, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.13 passed by the 4th Civil Judge-II, Jabalpur in COS No.7-A/13 (old 121-A/12) whereby their application (Annx.P/3) filed under Order 14 rule 5 of the CPC for framing the additional issues proposed in the application has been dismissed.3. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, after perusing the impugned application (Annex.P/3) along with the plaint and the written statement (Annex.P/2) so also the existing framed issues by the trial court, I am of the considered view that the proposed issue No.(I) stated in para-4 of Annex.P/3, is not required in the present matter because the suit has been filed b...
Chandramohan Yadav Vs. Tularam Yadav Since Died Smt. Shanti Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
1 W.P.No.16405/2013. 30.9.2013. Shri Lalji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 16.8.2013 passed by 8th Civil Judge, Class-II Bhopal in RCA No.571-A/11, whereby his application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Commissioner to call the report of the disputed site has been dismissed. In the couRs.of argument on admission on asking the petitioner's counsel regarding present status of the case, he fairly submits that the same is at the stage of recording the evidence of plaintiff, on which again asking that at the stage of recording the evidence of the parties how any of the parties could be permitted to collect the evidence by way of appointment of commissioner to call the report, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate app...
Sukhalal Jhariya Vs. Kamla Prasad Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Cr.A.No.528/2012 30.9.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Abhay Jain, 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 19.1.2012 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No.123/11, whereby respondents namely Kamla, Chandrika, Shyamabai and Shaligram have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of Durgeshwari (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Kamla within seven years of her death. Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Durgeshwari to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, on 26/10/10, under suspicious circumstances, dead body of Durgeshwari was found hanging in her matrimon...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shahzad Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Misc. Criminal Case No.261/2011 30.9.2013 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General 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 Shahzad Khan, Subrati Khan @ Subbu, Azad Khan, Bulbul Bee and Rahman Khan of the offences punishable under Sections 304B or 306 or 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The impugned judgment was passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Sessions Trial No.226/2009 on 28/8/2010. Marriage of Rizwana (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Shahzad within seven years of her death and other respondents are his family membeRs.Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Rizwana to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, un...
Aarti @ Sonu Vs. Deepak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Cr.A.No.1457/2013 30.9.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri K.S.Rajput, 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 20.4.2013 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act)).Khandwa, in Special Criminal Case No.70/2010, whereby respondent Deepak has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22/11/09 upon a false promise to marry, respondent kidnapped the prosecutrix, a member of scheduled caste, and subjected her to sexual assault for a period of 15-20 days in a hut situated near Pemadgarh brick kiln. Upon investigation into missing person report 40/09 registered by her father Omshankar at Police Outpost Padamnagar...
Raja Choubey @ Brajesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
M.Cr.C.No.1660/2013 30.09.2013 Shri P.S.Tomar, counsel for the applicants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the objector. Heard on admission. The applicants have challenged the registration of Crime No.80/12 registered at Police Station, Gourjhamar District Sagar for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354, 323 and 506/34 of IPC. The facts of the case, in short are that, on 6.4.2013 the prosecutrix had lodged an FIR against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 456, 323 and 506/34 of IPC. Thereafter, she had alleged that the offence of rape was committed with her and therefore, she gave a subsequently statement to the police. Again, she was examined medically and her vaginal swab was prepared and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and thereafter, the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC was added. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. B.P. Sharma
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...
A.M.Khan Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.20803/2003 Original Application No.3676/2002 Abdul Matin Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.Shri Vinod Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri vivek Agrawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondents. ORDER (30.9.2013) Initially the present petition was filed as Original Application before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur calling in question the order dated 10.04.2002 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of a penalty, after a departmental enquiry, has been dismissed by the departmental appellate authority. The petitioner has also called in question the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khandwa imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner, after reviewing the earlier order dated 10.7.1997. The Original Application was pending when the M.P. Administrative Tribunal was closed an...
Union of India Vs. Shri A.C. Ramnani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.12618/2012 30.9.2013 Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the Union of India/applicant. Shri Amit Verma, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Shri Shivendra Pandey, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by the Union of India through the Central Bureau of Investigation against the acquittal of respondents of the charges under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By the same judgment, the trial court has convicted co-accused persons under sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment. The case of prosecution was that Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) had decided to set up a petrol pump on National Highway No.27 at Asirgarh. An advertisement was, therefore, published. At that time respondent no.1 was working on the post of Deputy Mana...
Sharad JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-2013
M.CrC.No.12505/2013 30/09/2013 Shri Bhoop Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri S.D.Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. The applicants have challenged the order dated 16.8.2013 passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.158/13, whereby the arrest warrants were issued against the applicants. Facts of the case, in short are that, case was listed for the prosecution's evidence and the witnesses Ashok and Gautam were present but except the accused Satya Prakash, no accused appeared before the Court and therefore, the witnesses were released and the arrest warrants were issued against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were very much present before the trial Court and when, they went to call their advocate, in the meantime, the trial Court had issued their arrest warrants. Thereafter, when they appeared before the trial Court, the trial Court refused the change the order sheet....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »