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.
Saud Ali Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
M.Cr.C.No.11896 / 2013. 09/01/2014. Mr.Adil Usmani, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.R.N. Yadav, PL for the respondent No.1/ State. Mr.Moharam Ali, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Application vide IA No.25199/2013 for urgent hearing of the matter is allowed. Application vide IA No.25295/2013 for taking additional documents on record is allowed and same be taken on record. Petitioners and Respondent No.2 are present in person. They have been identified by their counsel. Petitioners have filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C.for quashing the proceedings pending before JMFC, Bhopal in R.T.No.11280/2010 (State of M.P.versus Saud Ali Khan & otheRs.under Sections 498-A & 506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during trial, petitioners and respondent No.2 entered into a compromise and on the basis of said compromise, they have settled their disputes out of the Court. However, since the offence under s...
Keshari Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
M.Cr.C.No.16095/2013. 09/01/2014. Mr.K.P. Soni, Advocate for the petitioners no 1 to 3. Mr.R.K. Choubey, Advocate for the complainants No.4 & 5. Mr.R.N. Yadav, PL for the respondent / State. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. The petitioners No.1 to 3/ accused persons and the complainants No.4 and 5, have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings pending against them in the court of JMFC, Jabalpur and also challenging the order impugned dated 26.8.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Jabalpur, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners as well as complainant for granting compromise in the matter, on the ground that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable. It is submitted by learned counsel for both the parties that the petitioners and the complainants, both have jointly filed an application vide IA No.26470/2013, seeking permission for compromise into the matter, on the gro...
Ashish Khare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.9557/2012 Ashish Khare Vs. The State of M.P and others PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER (09.01.2014) The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 12.1.2012 by which his services as daily wager were discontinued on account of certain misconduct. It is contended that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing in appropriate manner and alleging the misconduct since he has been removed from services, this particular aspect was challenged in appeal before the departmental appellate authority, but since the appeal is dismissed, this writ petition is required to be filed.2. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition in brief are that the petitioner, who was a daily wager, was assigned the duties to assist the department in the 2 criminal prosecution cases of the Fore...
Ajay Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPLE SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.20348/2013 (PIL) Ajay Dubey ... Petitioner Versus State of M.P. and others Respondents CORAM Hon. Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti Whether approved for reporting ?. Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Purushendra Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5. Shri Siddharth Seth, learned counsel for Respondents No.6 & 7. _________________________________________________________ ORDER (ORAL) (09/01/2014) Per A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice : This petition, filed as PIL, takes exception to the appointment of Mr. R. Parshuram as State Election Commissioner of the State of Madhya Pradesh vide Departmental Order dated 17.9.2013. 02. Only three grounds have been urged before us. First ground, is that, in absence of Rules regarding procedure for appointment of State Election Commissioner, it is imperative for the...
Ku. Richa Mehiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
M.Cr.C.No.16723/2013 9/1/2014 Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Yogesh Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ramji Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State This is an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner for offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 3(d) and 1, 2 r/w 4 of M.P.Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 in connection with Crime No.6/2013 of Police Station S.T.F.(Special Task Force).Bhopal. According to prosecution, on 14.8.2013, S.T.P.Bhopal received a complaint containing information that students of BDS are playing maal practice and a racket is working to change the answersheet after taking money. In the aforesaid activities, staff of different colleges and university has been found indulged and involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a girly student of BDS II year having no criminal antecedents. Allegations against her is that...
Permali Wallace Ltd Vs. Permali Wallace Karmchari Congress Judgement G ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
1 W.P.No.22285/2013. (Permali Wallace LTD.versus Permali Wallace Karmchari Congress) 06/01/2014 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. By way of instance petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India an interlocutory order dated 10/12/2013 passed by the Labour Court has been challenged, whereby petitioner management's application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. The order is perused. It is deducible that petitioner's conduct as reflected in the impugned order does not warrant any interference in the matter. The dispute is pending consideration since 1986 and as many as 30 adjournments have been granted to the petitioner/non-applicant. This Court in W.P.No.4910/1996 passed an order on 06/10/1997 for decision of the case within three months. However even thereafter sufficient opportunities have been afforded to the petitioner. Four dates i.e.20/10/2000, 04/05/ 2005, 11/05/2006 & 26/05/2006 were granted to file statement ...
Babu Vs. Premwati Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Keshav Kuma ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
SECOND APPEAL No.472/2011 1 09.01.2014 Shri R.L.Ariha, learned Counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law : A. Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court only on the basis of a decree passed in Civil Appeal No.72-A/2007 even when it was found by the lower Appellate Court that the present appellant was not a party in the said appeal ?.B.Whether in absence of specific pleading with respect to the application of the appellate judgment passed in any proceeding in which the appellant/plaintiff was not a party, principle of estopple would be applicable against the appellant to claim any relief against the respondents/defendants ?.C.Whether in absence of any counter claim, a registered sale-deed could be declared null and void even when the findings were recorded by the Trial Court with respect to the entitlement of plaintiff on the strength...
Jahangir Khan Vs. Union of India Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Just ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Misc. Appeal No : 128 of 2013 Jahangir Khan and another - V/s - Union of India. Misc. Appeal No : 549 of 2013 Jahangir Khan - V/s - Union of India. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In both the cases: Shri M. Shafiqullah, counsel for the appellants. Shri Govind Patel, counsel for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER0901/2014 As common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals and as they arise of the same cause of action, they are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents available in the record of M.A.No.128/2013 are being referred to in this order. 2- Challenging a common order-dated 12.12.2012 passed by Member Technical, Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in O.A....
Ruth Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishvidyalay Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Ruth versus RDVV, Jabalpur Writ Petition No.21638 / 2013 9.1.2014: Petitioner appears in person. Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ petition and the grievance of the petitioner is that after she was granted admission in the LL.M.CouRs.she has not been permitted to appear in the LL.M.FiRs.Semester Examination. She is a student of Neelkanth Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, Jabalpur and the University is denying her the right to appear in the examination. Petitioner appearing in person points out that the petitioner passed LL.B.Examination and obtained 54.36 % marks, as is evident from Annexure P-2. She belongs to the scheduled caste category and had submitted her application for admission to the LL.M.Course. In pursuance to certain guidelines and policies formulated by the university on-line admission form was filled by the petitioner and being a candidate belonging to relaxation category, after granting 5% relaxation of marks, as per gov...
Deenanath Bharti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1617/2012 Deenanath Bharti and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ................................................................................................. Shri Pranay Gupta, counsel for the applicants. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. .................................................................................................... ORDER (Delivered on the 9th day of January, 2014) The applicants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 of IPC vide judgment dated 10.5.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Bhopal in R.T. No.5392/2009 and sentenced with six months R.I. with fine of Rs.400/- and three months R.I with fine of Rs.100/-. In Criminal Appeal no.300/11 they were acquitted from the charge of Section 323 of I.P.C due to compromise. However, vide judgment dated 9.7.2012 their conviction for offence punishabl...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »