Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 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.
Sunil Kumar @ Murlidhar @ Murli @ Daduaa Vs. the State of Madhya Prade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
1 M.Cr.R No.16371 of 2013 20.01.2014 Shri Guljar Rajpur, counsel for the applicants. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for the respondent/State. Heard. On behalf of the applicants/ accused, this petition is preferred under section 439 of the Cr.P.C as he is in custody since 9.7.13 in connection of Crime No.249/13 registered against them at PS Barhi, District Katni for the offence punishable under section 341,302/34 of the IPC. Applicants counsel after taking me through para-14 of the deposition of Sunil Kachhi (PW1 argued that according to this witness his father (deceased) died due to single injury on his head and this witness could not see that which applicant has caused such fatal injury on the head of his father. In this background, by referring the deposition of Dr. Archana Grover, he said that according to opinion of such doctor deceased died due to head injury and in view of the aforesaid part of the deposition of the witness, the case of the prosecution is doubtful, therefore, applicants...
Laxman Rao Kamlekar Vs. Shivdas Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
W.P.No.19372/2013 Laxman Rao Kamlekar versus Shivdas & Anr. 20/01/2014 Shri Sanjay Sarwate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is a plaintiff and has filed the suit in question against the respondents for declaration and injunction with regard to the suit property. According to the petitioner, he has purchased the suit property by a registered sale-deed and his name is recorded in the revenue record and as the respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioner, the suit in question is filed. In the suit, the petitioner wanted to implead State Bank of India as a party and, therefore, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and as this application is rejected by the court below, petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is stated by the petitioner that the suit property is mortgaged with the State Bank of India and the State Bank of India has initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the S...
Chunnilal Upvanshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
M.Cr.C.No.15690 of 2013 20.01.2014 Shri Y. Soni, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned PL for respondent-State. Heard. On behalf of the applicant, this petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.351/13, registered against him and other Co.accused at Police Station Rampayli, district Balaghat for the offence of Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. Applicant's counsel after taking me through the impugned order of the Sessions Court argued that looking to the nature of ante mortem injuries of the deceased, Gowardhan Lilhare stated by the Doctor in the postmortem report he has not sustained any injury by stick while as per prosecution story, this applicant was having stick in his hand at the time of the incident. He has also stated that there is no direct allegation against the present applicant in the FIR as well as interrogatory statements of the witnesses and ...
Rahul Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
M.Cr.C.No.497/2014 M.Cr.C.No.497/2014 20.1.2014 Shri Anoop Saxena, counsel for the applicants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. Heard on admission as well as I.A.No.618/2014, an application to stay the proceedings. Investigation is the prerogative of the police and therefore, it cannot be stopped. Consequently, I.A.No.618/2014 is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. The applicants have challenged the registration of crime No.153/2013 registered at Police station Orccha Road, District Chhatarpur for offence under section 13 of the Public Gambling Act. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicants were found in a vehicle at an open place, near Purushottam school on 19.10.2013 at about 10.30 p.m.The witnesses and the investigation officer found that they were playing cards with stakes. A huge amount of more than Rs.6 Lacs was recovered from the applicants. Under such circumstances, a case under section 13 of Public Gambling Act was registered a...
Ghanshyam @ Bhullu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Cr.A.No.44/2014 20.01.2014 Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned PL for respondent-State. At the request of the appellants' counsel the case is taken, out of its turn from the list of motion hearing cases as the period of the bail granted by the trial court to the appellants is to be expired on 25.1.2014. Heard on the question of admission. Having perused the impugned judgment, this appeal appears to be arguable, hence the same is admitted for final hearing. State's counsel has taken notice of this admission, hence no further notice is required in this regard. Let the record of the trial court be requisitioned positively within 45 days. Also heard on IA No.211/14, appellants' application for suspension of their jail sentence and grant of bail as each of them has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC with a direction to undergo for RI four months with fine of Rs.500 and they have been released on bail by the trial court upto 25.1.2014 to ...
Ghanshyam Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgemen ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
W.P.No.981/2014 Ghanshyam & ORS.versus State of MP & ORS.20/01/2014 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Janpad Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the petitioners would be entitled to grant of regular pay scale of the post of Shiksha Karmi. However, such a claim is not being considered, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that identical claim was made before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P.No.602/2010 (S) by certain teachers of the similar category namely Mohanlal & others and the said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 directing consideration of the claim of the persons like petitioneRs.It is, thus, contended that similar treatment may be given to the petitioneRs.This Court in the case of Mohanlal (supra) has passed the following order : Accordingly, wit...
Smt. Uma Ghoshi Vs. Kandhilal Yadav Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri J ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Smt. Uma Ghoshi versus Kandhilal Yadav M.C.C.No.1503 / 2013 20.1.2014 Shri Amit Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transferring a Civil Suit No.145-A/2012 (Kandhilal Yadav versus Smt. Usha Ghoshi) pending in the court of IV th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur to the court of Additional District Judge Gadarwara. Respondent husband has initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. On the said proceeding, petitioner has filed this application for transfer, mainly on the ground that whenever she and her father came to court for evidence, the respondent and his people are threatening her in dire consequences and pressurize her to grant divorce. Petitioner also filed complaints on two occasions on 13.1.2013 and 11.1.2013 in this regard, petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court, in the matter of transfer. That apart...
Ajuddilal Mehra Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh Ju ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
W.P.No.877/2014 Ajuddilal Mehra versus State of MP & ORS.20/01/2014 Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.5.2013 passed by Respondent No.5, by which petitioner has been informed that the contract service of the petitioner is being brought to an end, as necessary allotment of funds has not been made for the district in question i.e.Narsinghpur. Similar petitions filed and similar action taken with regard to the contract employees working under the same scheme in the District of Damoh was the subject matter of consideration before this Court in W.P.No.14234/2013 and a coordinate bench of this Court vide order passed on 26.8.2013 has disposed of the writ petition in the following terms : Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.it is observed that the facts as to whether MANREGA is being implemented in Damoh, whether it has been closed down, whether funds are available or not are require...
Rajeev Gandhi College Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
1 W.P.No.21467/2013 Rajeev Gandhi College State of M.P.& others 20.1.2014 Shri Manoj Sharma, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for respondents/State. Shri K.K.Singh, Counsel for respondent No.5. This petition is directed against an order dated 14.10.2013 Annexure P/5 by which a conditional order was passed against the petitioner directing the petitioner to comply with Clause 8(5) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, failing which recognition of the petitioner shall be treated as withdrawn. This order is under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, against which an appeal lies under Section 18 of the said Act. The Appex Court in AdaRs.Shiksha Mahavidyalaya versus Subhash Rahangdale (2012) 2 SCC425has specifically directed that any institution aggrieved by the decision of the Western Regional Committee to reject the application for recognition or for permission to start a new couRs.or training or withdrawal of recognition under Section 17 shall be free to avail the remedy of appeal un...
Smt. Sarita Misrha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
W.P.No.13862/2013 (Smt. Sarita Mishra versus State of MP and others ) 20.01.2014 Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by her supercession while making promotion on the post of Project Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner though being eligible and qualified for being considered for promotion on the post of Project Officer, has not been considered while the respondents No.6 and 7 who are juniors to the petitioner, have been considered and promoted. It is submitted that previously the ACRs of the petitioner were not available and therefore, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.14348/11 before this court which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents/authorities to look into the matter and make available the ACRs.of the petitioner, pursuant to which the respondents/authorities have now recorded the ACRs of the petitioner but her case has not been considered for further p...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »