Madhya Pradesh Court February 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.
Pradeep Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Sh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
Criminal Revision No.1029/2013 18.02.2014 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.the applicants have challenged the order dated 16.5.2013 passed by the learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur in ST No.88/2013 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 307 or 307/149 of IPC were framed against the applicants along with other charges. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.1.2013 the applicants assaulted the various victims at Village Purgawan Tahsil Gadarwara District Narsinghpur. As per the allegations, they assaulted the victims Anil Sharma, Mukesh, Shashikan, Laxman, Satyanarayan and Diwan. On 18.2.2013 the doctor of Anant Institute of Medical Sciences gave a report that injury of the victim Anil Sharma was grave, and therefore charge sheet was filed for the offence under Se...
Uma Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
WRIT PETITION No.16318/2010 1 18.02.2014 None for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The complaint made by the petitioner is that no action is being taken by the respondents-authorities against the respondents No.5 to 7. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondents- authorities to take action against respondents No.5 to 7. The reliefs are claimed on the basis of aforesaid pleadings. The issue is to be looked into by the respondents- authorities and in case a complaint is made with respect to registration of offence and no action is taken by the authorities, it is open to the complainant, petitioner in the present case, to lodge a complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a Magistrate. In the case of Aleque Padamsee and others versus Union of India and otheRs.(2007) 6 SCC171 the Apex Court has categorically held that the M...
Gopal Kaurav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'b ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
CRR No.2310/2013 Criminal Revision No.2310/2013 18.2.2014 Shri Aditya Khandekar, counsel for the applicants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, heard them finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in S.T.No.37/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 306 or 306/34 of IPC were framed against the applicants. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the victim Kamlesh was assaulted by the applicants with the pretext that daughter of Kamlesh would be taken by the applicant Hargovind Kaurav and he would keep the daughter of the victim. After 4-5 days of the incident, the deceased committed suicide by jumping before a train. He left a suicidal note in his pocket in which he narrated the entire story and prayed that the applicants be punished. For framing of charges, no rebuttal evi...
Gufran Azam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
W.P.No.6340/2010 18.02.2014 None for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. The petitioner sought for the following relief : i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/quo-warranto restraining the respondents from permitting any such issues/ materials to be tabled before the State Assembly which are prohibited under Rule 36 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adhere to the constitutional provisions and also the Assembly Rules in its entirety for conduct of business of the State Legislative Assembly in Madhya Pradesh. iii) To issue a command for producing the entire record pertaining to present case for perusal of Hon'ble High Court. It is submitted by Shri Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General, that the matter relates to raising certain call attention proposal to be tabled in the Vidhan Sabha which cannot be questioned by the petitioner before this Co...
Ashok Kumar Rai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
1 W.A.No.163/2014 Ashok Kumar Rai State of M.P.& another 18.2.2014 Shri D.K.Dixit, Counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Dy.A.G.for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 3.2.2014 in W.P.No.1802/2014 by which writ petition preferred by the appellant against his transfer order dated 22.1.2014 by which the appellant was transferred from Directorate, Urban Administration and Development, Bhopal to Nagar Parishad, Nasrullaganj, Sehore, has been disposed of with certain directions. Learned Single Judge has found that the grievance of the appellant can be redressed by the respondents on filing a representation in this regard. The main grievance of the appellant which was raised before this Court is that the appellant is prosecuting his B.E.Degree couRs.at Vidhisha and if appellant is transferred to Nasrullaganj, it will be very difficult to join his classes and as per rules the appellant who is posted at a distance of more than 40 Kms has to leave his studies. On th...
Amarnath Saket Vs. Shantanu Bihari Mishra Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
Cr.R.No.628/2013 18.2.2014 Shri Swapnil Sohgaura, counsel for the applicant. Heard on IA. No.9848/2013, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision. The present revision is filed with delay of 13 days and looking to the averments made in the application, delay of 13 days in filing the present petition is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rewa in Special Case No.24/2012, whereby the respondents no.1 and 2 were discharged from the charge of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Special Act) and matter was remanded under Section 228 of Cr.P.C to the JMFC to try the matter for remaining offences. The prosecution's case in short was that on 18.4.2006 the applicant went to the office of the respondents situated at Gallamandi, Rewa, to get an information about his application ...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi Sharma Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
W.A.No.1379/2010. (State of Madhya Pradesh & others versus Smt. Laxmi Devi & otheRs.1 18/02/2014. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General for the appellants/State. Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for respondents. This writ appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging an order dated 14/05/2010 passed by the writ court in W.P.No.16887/2003. Respondent Smt. Laxmi Devi Sharma had filed a writ petition seeking direction to the State Government for her promotion on the post of Supervisor at par with her junior with effect from 23/09/1998. She came out with a case that she was appointed on 03/08/1982 on the post of Aaganwadi Worker and on such consideration sought the benefit. No return was filed by the respondents, even though the writ petition was pending since 2003, after a period of seven yeaRs.the petition was decided on the material available on record. W.A.No.1379/2010. (State of Madhya Pradesh & other...
Bholu Singh Tomar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
W.P.No.2560/2014 18/2/2014 Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succeeds and is a...
M/s Kids and Associates Vs. District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bhopal, ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
W.P.No.9201/2011. (M/S.Kids & Associates versus District Magistrate Cum Collector, Bhopal & another) 1 18/02/2014. Shri Anand Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.N.Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition and it is stated that in para No.1 of the writ petition that petition is not aggrieved by any order, no order has been challenged by the petitioner but it is stated that respondent No.2 Bank has filed an application under Section 14 of SARFEASI Act, before the District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhopal which is pending till date and notices have been issued but no final order has been passed. It is stated that the Bank without deciding the objection and representation of the petitioner filed this application invoking the proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act, which is unsustainable. Respondents have filed a detailed reply and it is pointed out that initially when the W.P.No.9201/2011. (M/S.Kids & Associates versus...
Jaisingh Inwati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
:: 1 :: Writ Petition No.13860/2011 18.2.2014. Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate for respondent-State. Grievance raised by the petitioner is against his non- promotion to the post of Assistant Grade III, which the petitioner alleges is because of wrong recording of fact that the petitioner, during relevant time, underwent punishment. Appointed as Prahri on 3.1.1987 a Class IV post, the petitioner was brought within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade III the procedure whereof, was taken recouRs.to in August 2007. The petitioner was superseded when, by order-dated 4.8.2007, respondent no.4 was promoted. On an information sought by the petitioner by moving an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner was supplied relevant documents of the DPC proceedings wherefrom he could gather that he has been superseded because of some punishment of censure being reported...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »