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.
Shailendra Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 WP1711113 W.P.No.17111/2013 26.09.2013 Shri Gopal Singh, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri K.S.Wadhwa, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Heard on question of admission. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- 7.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in an appropriate nature for quashing the impugned letter dt. 1/8/13 Annexure P-5 and tender notice dt. 4/9/13 (Annexure P-6) to the extend of submitting the technical bid for the construction work more than 50 lacs rupees. 7.2 That, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner for bidding in the tender issued on 4/9/13 for the work detailed therein by exempting them to submit any such technical bid/technical evaluation/selection. 7.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed. The sole contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in order...
Harle and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2094/1996 Harle and another Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellants. Shri A. Tiwari, Advocate for the Objector. Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, PL for the respondent/State. JUDGMENT (26/09/2013) 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5/10/96 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No.24/95 whereby they have been convicted u/s 323, 323/34, 307 of IPC and sentenced to make payment of fine of Rs.25/- each in default to suffer RI for 7 days, undergo RI for 5 years & fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further RI for 3 months each.2. It is undisputed on record that complainant and appellants have been entered into a compromise out of the Court and on the basis of said compromise appellants have been acquitted to the charge u/s 323, 323/34 of IPC.3. The prosecution ca...
Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs. Joint Registarar Cooperative Societies Rewa
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 W.P.No.16537/13. 27.9.2013. Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajnish Gupta, learned counsel fore respondent No.3 & 4. The presence of respondent No.1 and 2 are not required. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ a suspended employee of Sub-society of respondent No.3 and 4 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 5.9.2013 (Ann. P.10).passed by the Joint Registrar Co-operative society, Rewa in appeal bearing No.55(21)-06/13, whereby his prayer for grant of stay against the order of his suspension, has been rejected. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record by referring the order sheets of the trial Court dated 18.1.2013, said that on filing the appeal the interim stay order was passed by the appellate authority, the same was continued vide order dated 28.1.2013 and thereafter for two dates the presiding officer of such Court was not available a...
Lalta Prasad and ors. Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
[1]. Criminal Appeal No.1191/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1191/1997 Lalta Prasad and others Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.Shri Surendra Singh, Sr. Counsel with Shri Shivam Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, GA for the State. JUDGMENT [26.9.2013].1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by conviction and sentence recorded by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T. No.58/96 vide judgment dated 11.6.1997 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years with fine of ` 1000/- each, with default stipulations.2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 10.4.1996 at about 10.00 AM when prosecurtix was going from village Amilia to the house of her uncle-in-law Shankar Kol (PW-5) at village Chamroha Gadai, at that time, three boys, who were sitting near Bahra beneath a Neem tree, followe...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Nadeem Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
M.Cr.C.No.11472/2013 26.09.2013 Shri S.D.Khan, Government Advocate for the applicant/State. Heard on admission. The applicant/State has challenged the order dated 25.5.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Revision No.78/12, whereby the order dated 9.3.2012 passed by the Conservator of Appellate Authority, Seoni relating to the confiscation of the vehicle was set aside. Facts of the case, in short are that, on 19.8.2010, it was found that the vehicle No.MP22BA0138was plying between the Chapra to Bheemgarh Road and eight logs of timber were found. Only the vehicle and timber were seized and the confiscation proceeding was initiated. The confiscation officer directed for confiscation of the vehicle and thereafter, it was approved by the appellate authority i.e.conservator of forest vide order dated 14.6.2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order passed by the conservator and release the vehicle. After considering the submissions made ...
Jitu @ Jitendra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.642/2007 Jitu @ Jitendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh *** Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned PL for the State. *** JUDGMENTS2609.2013 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by impugned judgment dated 17.11.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.64/2006 by which appellant has been convicted under Sections 376(1) and 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/- and RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for 3 months on each count.2. Facts, in short, are that the prosecutrix and the appellant were neighbours. In the night of 8-9/10/2004 at about 2.00 3.00 AM when prosecutrix went out from her house, the appellant enticed her and gave a Laddu to the prosecutrix. When prosecutrix ate the same, she become unconsciou...
R.R. Chaurasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.2856/2009 R.R.Chaurasiya. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and otheRs.PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Deependra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. ORDER (26.9.2013) The petitioner, a retired Sub Engineer of Water Resources Department, has approached this Court ventilating his grievance against the action of respondents of recovering an amount of Rs.40,179/- from his retiral dues, alleging that without conducting any enquiry whatsoever only on the strength of an order issued treating certain loss caused to the State on account of lapses of the petitioner, though a lesser amount of recovery was directed, the huge amount is recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. It is contended that for any misconduct a detail enquiry should have been conducted, but at no point of time any such enquiry was conducted. On the other hand, a report was...
Santosh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Criminal Appeal No.2194/1996 26.09.2013 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.K.Mishra, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/ State. Heard finally. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.11.1996 passed by Special Judge [SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)].Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').Chhatarpur in Special Case. No.12/1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and sentenced to R.I.for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he has to suffer further R.I.for one month. Facts in short, are that on 01.01.1996, at about 5 P.M., prosecutrix had gone with her friend to pluck gram leaves in the field of Jhandu Shukla. It is alleged that appellant came there and became naked and used criminal force on prosecutrix with the intention to outrage her modesty. Prosecutrix came back to her house and narrated the inci...
Devi Dayal Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
1 Writ Petition No.8696/2013 26.09.2013 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents on advance notice. The petitioner initially appointed as Anudeshak seeks direction to the respondents to consider his claim for appointment on the post of Contract Teacher, Grade-II. Parity is being sought with Anil Bhatt, petitioner in writ petition No.91/2011(s) decided on 21.02.2012 in the following terMs.In Anil Bhatt (supra) it is held- Admittedly, the examination in question was held under the 2005 Rules. Rules 4 and 5 deals with minimum educational qualification as well as prescribed minimum marks for qualifying examination. From a perusal of Rule 4 it is apparent that a candidate must have passed the higher secondary school Examination or an equivalent examination. Rule 5 provides that in the qualifying examination candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC and disabled category should have secured a minimum 40 % marks whereas cut off mark...
Mohd. Saeed Vs. Smt. Fatima Bi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Writ Petition No.16359/2013 26.09.2013 Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner-defendant-tenant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 27.8.2013, passed by the XXIst Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal in RCS No.735-A/12 whereby his application filed under order 16, Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of CPC for calling the call details of some mobile number of the present respondent- landlord and her family members has been dismissed. Initially the case was argued at length by the petitioner's counsel saying that in order to prove the defence of the petitioner regarding availability of alternate accommodation with the respondent of his own for the alleged need in the same town, the aforesaid call details is necessary but without considering such aspect his application has been dismissed by the trial court under the wrong premises. In the couRs.of arguments, on asking th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »