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.
icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mangal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Writ Petition No.2654/2010 18.09.2013 Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.B.Patel, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Looking to the nature of question involved in the present petition, the presence of respondent Nos.3 to 5 being co-non-applicants with the petitioner in the Tribunal is not required for adjudication of this petition, hence notices against them, if the same have not been served, are hereby dispensed with. Looking to the nature of question involved in this petition, instead to hear on the question of admission, with the consent of the parties, the same is heard on merits. The petitioner- insurer has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Begamganj, district Raisen in MCC No.06/09, whereby dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Order 9, Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside the exparte order, it has ...
Janardan Prasad Tiwari Vs. Rajendra Singh @ Pti
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Criminal Revision No.1710/2006 18.9.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shr Atul Singh Gaharwar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for respondent no.6-State. Matter is finally heard. This revision petition has been preferred under 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.4.2006 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court).Rewa, in Sessions Trial No.69/2005, whereby respondent nos.1 to 5 namely Rajendra Singh, Neta @ Shiv Kumar, Pushpendra Singh, Narayan Singh and Chandrashekhar have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 394, 395 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7/3/04 at about 11 a.m.at Village Hinota, respondent Nos.1 to 5 committed robbery of gold chain and Rs.5000/- by beating complainant Janardan, Bhupendra and Mahe...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rajendra Kumar @ Kallu
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11526/2011. 18.09.13 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 05/07/2011 passed by the Session Judge, Raisen, in Sessions Trial No.64/2010 whereby respondent Nos.1 to 4 namely Rajendra Kumar, Akhil alias Nikki, Nikhil alias Teenu and Beer Singh have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short) and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also been acquitted of the offence under Section 325 read with 34 of the IPC, but respondent nos.1 and 2 have been convicted under Section 325 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2/11/2009 at about 2.00 pm, respondents in furtherance of their common intention, attempted murder of Ishwar Singh...
S.D. Tiwariu Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.1759/2013 S.D.Tiwari and another. -Versus- Union of India and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Ms.Anjana Goswami Advocate and Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri V.P.Nema and Shri Rahul Diwakar, Advocate, for the interveneRs.ORDER ( .9.2013) 1: This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the two petitioners is directed against the order dated 10/17.10.2012 passed by the respondent No.1-Union of India, in Ministry of Civil Aviation, whereby a direction is given to fix the seniority of the merged employees and officers of International Airports Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as IAAI for brevity) and National Airports...
Ku. Vaishali Tiwari Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Writ Petition No ::12300. / 2013 Ku. Vaishali Tiwari versus Board of Secondary Education & Another 18.09.2013. Shri Ashish Shroti for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav for respondent No.1. Shri Gopal Jaiswal for respondent No.2. Challenging the action of the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal respondent No.1, in not issuing the correct mark-sheet to the petitioner and seeking compensation for the irregularity committed by the respondents in not issuing the mark-sheet, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was a student, who appeared in the 12th Class namely Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education respondent No.1. The examination was conducted in March-April, 2013 and the result was declared in May, 2013. After declaration of result, when the original mark-sheet was issued to the petitioner, she was declared to have passed and was granted 75 marks out of 100, in the subject of Hindi (General).Dis- satisfied with the same, petitioner sub...
Smt. Shakuntala Vs. the Barkatullah Vishvidyalaya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Writ Petition No ::5650. / 2013 Smt. Shakuntla versus Barkatullah University and others 18.09.2013. Shri Manish Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav for respondents 1 and 2. Shri Manas Verma for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. 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 H.B.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 admissi...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rehan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.5575/2013. 18.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the applicant-State. Heard on I.A.No.9814/13 for condonation of delay in preferring this application for leave to file appeal. As per Office note, the application is barred by 101 days. Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and delay in filing the application is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. Taking into consideration the reasoning assigned for discarding the incriminating evidence brought on record, the application is allowed and leave to appeal is hereby granted. Case be registered as Criminal Appeal. Issue bailable warrant for a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) against each one of respondent Nos.1 to 3 to secure their presence before this Court on the next date of hearing. Matter be listed for consideration on the question of admission on 21/11/13. (AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)...
SirajuddIn Vs. Sahajmani Begum
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.M.Cr.C.No.591/2013 Sirajuddin & Others VERSUS Sahajmani Begum & Others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri J.A.Shah, counsel for the applicants. Shri Sudhir Mishra, counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 19th day of September, 2013) The applicants have challenged the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judge to Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in criminal revision No.91/2012, whereby the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the SDM, Burhanpur in criminal case No.2/2012 was confirmed, by which it was directed that the first floor of the disputed property be again handed over to the respondents No.1 to 3.2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, both the parties are relati...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Gangapal @ Gangaprasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
M.Cr.C.No.8049/2012. 18.09.13 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 03/04/2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa, in Sessions Trial No.211/2011 whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28/11/2011 at about 7.30 p.m., respondent attempted the murder of complainant Deepak Singh, by stabbing him in his stomach. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence and the same deserved to be interfered with. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were per...
Rajendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
Criminal Appeal No.1131/2009 18/09/2013 Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Heard on I.A.No.15808/13, which is the sixth application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Rajendra. Appellant stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 325, 325 of IPC and has been sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment, RI for 3 yeaRs.RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.500/- with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment. By inviting our attention to the order dated 19/10/2012 it has been submitted that appellant Rajendra is also sailing in the same boat in which Shyamsunder was sailing and since this case is also akin to the case of Shyamsunder who has been enlarged on bail on the said date, the same treatment may also be given to the appellant. On the other hand, Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Public Prosecutor has vigorously oppo...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »