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.
Santoshdas and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.267 OF 199.Santoshdas & others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 18th day of September, 2013) Vide judgment dated 30.1.1997 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in ST No.12/1992 the appellant No.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced with two years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-, whereas the appellants No.2 and 3 were convicted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced with three years' RI with fine of Rs.500/- each. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,...
Smt. Reetu Gupta Vs. Rani Durgawati Viswavidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Writ Petition No ::5700. / 2013 Smt. Reetu Gupta versus RDVV and another 18.09.2013. Shri Manish Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri Manas Verma for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Petitioner was a student who was granted admission to the B.Ed CouRs.in the Academic Session 2007-08, and contending that the result of the petitioner is not being declared by the University, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the respondents point out that this is one of the case where the recognition and affiliation granted to the Institute in question i.e Gurukul B.Ed College, Jabalpur, was cancelled; recognition was never granted to the Institute in question; and, the Institute without even grant of recognition admitted the students. The matter came to this Court and thereafter travelled to the Supreme Court in a SLP filed. The Supreme Court, in the SLP filed by most of the colleges, passed an interim order directing for grant of admission provisionally, but subsequently the SLP has ...
Kanhiya Lal Shakya Vs. Babulal Kushwaha
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
1 W.P.No.12403/13. 18.9.2013. Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.1, 3 & 4. Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, learned counsel for resp0ondent No.2. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 8.7.2013 (Ann. P.1).passed by the 11th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.07-A/2008 whereby the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed. Initially the case was argued at length by the petitioner counsel but in response of some query of the Court based in the available circumstances of the matter, on which instead to argue further the counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all the grounds and objections raised in the petition subject to final judgment and decree of the trial Court on arising the occasion in duly constituted appeal. ...
Sdam College Vs. National Council for Teacher Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
M.C.C.No.1136/2013 SDAM College versus National Council for Teacher Education & ORS.18/09/2013 Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for Respondent No.5/ University Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that a perusal of the orders dated 28.1.2013 and 10.4.2013 passed in W.P.No.6758/2011 do not indicate that the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution or due to non- compliance of the peremptory order passed by this Court, on the contrary the order dated 28.1.2013 and 10.4.2013, prima-facie, indicates that due to non-compliance with certain directions issued by this court, the petition was dismissed. That being the position, we are of the considered view that the petitioner should seek review/recall of the order dated 10.4.2013 and a restoration application presented is not maintainable. On such an observations being made, Shri Manot Sharma seeks time to file the application for review of ...
Nagar Palik Nigam Sagar Vs. Niraj Dubey
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
1 W.P.No.15176/2011. 18.9.2013. Shri Wazid Hyder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ defendant (wife) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 25.4.2011 passed by 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in C.S.No.146-A/09, whereby the right of the petitioner to defend the matter has been struck down and in such premises her right to cross-examine the respondent and his witnesses has also been closed. Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments perused the papers placed on record. It is undisputed on record that the impugned petition has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus looking to the gravity of such dispute if the impugned order is not set aside and an opportunity to defend the case along with the right to...
Rai Singh Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
W.P.No.16078/2013 (R.S.Maravi versus State of MP and otheRs.18.09.2013 Heard Shri M.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akash Choudhary, learned P.L.for the State on advance copy. By I.A.No.12935/13 the petitioner has brought on record the subsequent event to the effect that he has been relieved from his place of posting on 11.09.2013. Further heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 06.09.2013 by which he has been transferred from Rural Engineering Service Division Dindori to the Office of the Rural Engineering Service Division Bhind. The petitioner alleges that he has been transferred in violation of the transfer policy. A Division Bench of this Court in R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority themselves by filing a ...
Chandra Shekhar Tiwari Vs. Cent. Bank Home Finance Ltd
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
1 W.P.No.15540/13. 18.9.2013. Shri Akshay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provision of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (In short the Act.).to quash the order dated 6.7.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, it must be Collector, Jabalpur respondent No.2 whereby exercising power under the Act the petitioner has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed house which was subject matter of the mortgage of some transaction with respondent No.1 Bank. Initially the case was argued by the petitioner's counsel at length and in support of his contention he also placed his reliance on the case law in the matter of Harbanslal Sahnia versus Indian Oil Corporation LTD.reported in (2003) 2 SCC 10.and in the matter United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tandon and ...
Mohd. Mubeen Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
1 W.P No.8479 o18. 9.2013 Shri Adil Usmani, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Amit Sharma, PL for the respondents. In view of listing the matter, IA No.9976/13 does not require further consideration, hence the same is hereby disposed of. Also heard on IA No.2086/13 petitioners application for taking the annexed documents on record. Without expressing any opinion on merits of such document, for the reason stated in it, the same is allowed and the annexed documents are taken on record.2. Heard on the question of admission.3. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 8.5.12 passed by X ADJ.Bhopal in M.A No.171/11 affirming the order dated 5.8.11 passed by the 16th Civil Judge Class-II Bhopal in COS No.174/10, whereby their application filed under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuing ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/ authorities to interfere in their possession of the disputed land has bee...
Ramsahaya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Writ Petition No.15717/2013 18.09.2013 Shri P.D.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ for the following reliefs:- I. Hold that the action of the respondents in raising construction over the land kh. No.68 is in violation of the provisions of the M.P.Land Revenue Code and infringes the rights of the petitioners conferred under part III of the Constitution, II. Direct the respondents to not to raise any type of construction over kh. No.68 and not to create any type of obstruction or restriction in free exercise of nistar right by issuing appropriate writ or order as may be considered fit, III.Grant such other relief as may be thought fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, After taking me through the papers placed on record, petitioneRs.counsel apprised me that the respondent No.3 is going to construct the building of ...
Kaluram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.10505/2013 M.Cr.C.No.10505/2013 18.9.2013 Shri Lalji Kushwaha, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents No.1 to 4. Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No.18413/2013, an application for staying the result of the impugned order dated 17.5.2013. The facts of the case, in short, are that, it is alleged before the police that the deceased Shiv Prasad committed suicide in the open market and therefore, a case for offence punishable under section 309 of IPC was registered and after his death, a final report was submitted before the JMFC concerned. Kaluram, father of the deceased has submitted an application that Sarpanch Virendra Singh Raghuvanshi has killed his son and therefore, his application may be considered as a criminal complaint. The learned JMFC, Bina considered his application as a criminal complaint. Thereafter, it was directed that the learned JMFC, Bina shall go to see the spot and the application for local inspection was...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »