Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 Judgments
Ragvendra @ Pappu Baiswar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Gi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Criminal Revision No.1817/2013 31.01.2014 Shri Neeraj Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the applicant-State. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 3.9.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in ST No.43/2011 whereby the application of the applicant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is facing a trial for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. After the incident the police sent the prosecutrix for her medico legal examination. The slide of vaginal swab was prepared by the concerned doctor and also one petticoat was recovered from the prosecutrix and such things were sent to the FSL for analysis. No report has been received from the FSL. The applicant had moved an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to get the sample of blood etc.with the request for comparison of DNA examination from the source of vaginal swab and petticoat. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Kumar Sahu Vs. Munnalal Agrawal Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
M.Cr.C.No.7499/2012 31/01/2014 Shri Arup K. Das, Advocate for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.against the order dated 9.8.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Jabalpur in criminal complaint No.1158/2009 whereby the application of the applicant dated 12.7.2011 was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 has initiated a criminal complaint against the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the stage of defence evidence, the applicant raised an objection dated 12.7.2011 that the cheque was issued on behalf of M/s Maa Narmada TradeRs.whereas that institution was not made a party in the case, and therefore due to non-joinder of the party whereas no demand notice was given to the concerned firm, the complaint may be dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class after considering the submissions made by the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bhagwati Baiw Vs. Raghuveersingh Raghuwasnhi Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
M.Cr.C.No.14326/2013 M.Cr.C.No.14326/2013 31.1.2014 Shri N.P.Dubey, counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24.9.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur in criminal case No.12165/2009, whereby the respondent was convicted for offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and sentenced with fine of Rs.500/-. However, the trial Court acquitted the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under sections 354, 294, 506 (Part-II) of IPC. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 19.12.2001, at about 11.30 p.m., in the night, when the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was sleeping in her house, situated at Kanchghar colony, Jabalpur, the respondent entered in the house and held the prosecutrix and threw her on the bed. He assaulted the prosecutrix and scuffled with the prosecutrix and therefore, the blouse of the prosecutrix was torn. The respondent abused her with obscene words a...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. Secretary School Education Department the ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
1 W.P.No.758/2014 W.P.No.758/2014 31.01.2014 Shri Ramakant Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Ms.S.Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State. Petitioners initially appointed as Shiksha Karmis under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998. Subsequently, being absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak in pursuance to the Madhya Pradesh Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of service) Rules 2008 and granted regular pay-scale with effect from 01.04.2007 seeks direction to the respondents to grant regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi. During the couRs.of submission, it is being stated by learned counsel for petitioners that similarly situated persons have approached this Court vide writ petition No.602/2010(s) : Mohanlal and ors.v.State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 22.01.2010 & writ petition No.4720/2013 : Jitendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and these petitions...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.Mrs.Shalini Saxena Vs. Ito-2 (2) Judgement Given By: Hon'ble the Ch ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
---1--- I.T.A. No.158/2009 31.1.2014 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard counsel for the parties. We have perused the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11.1.2008 as also dated 29.5.2009 and the other decisions of the sub-ordinate Authorities. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in Paragraph No.10 of the impugned judgment. If the said finding are to be upheld the conclusion reached by the Tribunal ought to follow. The same is unexceptionable. The Tribunal in Paragraph No.11 has also pointedly noted that no evidence or submission made with regard to other additions. Instead, the grievance made before this Court on the earlier occasion was that the Advocate for the appellant had argued other points and also relied on the decision of the Tribunal, which has not been adverted to. The Court gave liberty to the appellant to approach the Tribunal for correction of the record. O...
Tag this Judgment!Shailendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
---1--- W.P.No.1882/2014 (PIL) 31.1.2014 Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Not on Board; taken up upon Mention Memo. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. None appears for private contesting respondents. Prima facie, we are in agreement with the stand taken by the petitioner and duly supported by the State Government that the members of Respondents No.6 and 7 and members of other Associate Medical Unions, cannot be allowed to resort to strike as per the Code of Ethics and Regulations and, more particularly, because the State Government has already invoked provisions of the Essential Service of Maintenance Act, 1981. We will only remind the said respondents and all medical officers attached to the concerned hospitals and Medical Colleges about the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of T.K.Rangarajan versus Government of Tamil Nadu and ORS.- AIR2003SC3...
Tag this Judgment!Shahjad Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Appeal No.506/2008 Shahjad Kha VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Akhilesh Dey, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A. for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 30th day of January, 2014) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 31.1.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in special case No.52/2006, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced with 2 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 20.7.2006, at about 2 p.m., the prosecutrix who was resident of village Babchiya, Tahsil Bairasiya, District Bhopal went to a Nala to answe...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Chouhan Vs. Chairman Hindustan Copper Limited Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
---1--- W.A.No.554/2012 30.1.2014 Ms.C.V.Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent on advance copy. Per A.K.Shrivastava, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The order dated 17.4.2012 passed in W.P.No.2623/2011 has been challenged by the writ petitioner by filing this writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for disposal of the present case. Suffice it to say that the same have been dealt with in para 2 to 4 of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge. Indeed, the employment of the writ petitioner/appellant was challenged by filing the writ petition. The learned writ Court on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition and in the return and the material available on record came to hold that the employer who purportedly issued the certificate on the basis of which the writ petitioner/appellant procured e...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Farida Khan Vs. Dilshad Khan Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Jus ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
M.Cr.C.No.14544/2013 M.Cr.C.No.14544/2013 30.1.2014 Shri Vijay Raghav Singh, counsel for the applicants. Heard on admission. The applicants have preferred the present application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.against the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in criminal revision No.502/2013, by which the revision was dismissed and order dated 26.7.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Bhopal in M.J.C.(Criminal) No.16/2011 was maintained in which the application under section 181 and 182 of IPC was dismissed. The facts of the case, in short, are that, a criminal proceeding was pending before the JMFC, Bhopal in which the respondent No.1 filed an affidavit relating to stay order passed by the single Bench of this Court and apparently that affidavit was not correct. The applicants have moved an application to prosecute the respondent No.1 for offence under sections 181 and 182 of IPC but, the trial Court found that the order was in English and as p...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Badgaiyan Vs. Sanjeet Pandey Judgement Given By: Hon'ble the Chi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
---1--- W.A.No.506/2012 30.1.2014 Shri T.S.Ruprah, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned government Advocate for Respondents/State. Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.4.2012 in W.P.No.21563/2011. The fiRs.contention raised before us is that the learned Single Judge has committed manifest error in granting relief of reinstatement of the writ petitioner/respondent in the office of Member, Janpad Panchayat by setting aside the election of the appellant, who was elected in place of the private respondent/writ petitioner. This argument does not commend to us. The private respondent had sought express relief in that behalf by amending the writ petition. He had asked for further relief that election of Respondent No.5 to the concerned post be set aside. Learned Single Jud...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »