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.
Krishnakant Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'bl ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
CRR No.2463/2013 Criminal Revision No.2463/2013 14.2.2014 Shri S.D.Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 26.9.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T.No.456/2013, whereby the charges for offence under Section 326 of IPC were framed against the applicant. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant assaulted the victim Rajni Bai by a hot Chimta, causing injuries on her both hands. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charges of offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC on the basis of report given by the doctor that the injuries caused to the victim were grave in nature. However, such opinion cannot be ac...
Navyug Shiksha Samiti and Ors. Vs. Jank Bai and Ors. Judgement Given B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
1 MCC No.1320/2005 MCC No.1320/2005. 14/02/2014. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey, Advocate for the applicants. Shri N.K.Salunke, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents No.2 & 3 / State. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in the matter of review / recall of order dated 06.04.2004 passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3911/96 and the order dated 29.10.2004 passed in Contempt Petition No.1151/2004, it is seen that W.P.No.3911/96 was filed by the respondent Smt. Janki Bai Kachhi, who was working as a daily wage Farrash in Navyug Arts & Commerce College, Jabalpur, seeking her regularization in service. The petition was listed for hearing before a Bench of this Court on 06.04.2004 and it is seen that more than 60 petitions were listed on the same day. Most of the cases listed were pertaining to daily wages working in Government Departments and Government Institutes and therefore, the...
Amit Kumar Meena Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: H ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
1 M.Cr.C. No.4351 of 2011 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J Misc. Criminal Case No.4351/2011 Amit Kumar Meena & another. -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate for the applicants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent- State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 14th day of February, 2014) The applicants have preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.277/2009 whereby the order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No.21598/2008 was confirmed in which the learned JMFC dismissed the application filed by the applicants on the ground that the directions given by Hon'ble the Apex Court...
Mohammad Shahid Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Ho ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF2013Mohammad Shahid Versus. State of Madhya Pradesh For applicant : Shri Sankalp Kochar , Advocate. For Respondent/ : Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer. State ORDER (Oral) (14.02.2014) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.1. On behalf of the applicant/accused, this revision is preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2013, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Begumganj, District Raisen in Sessions Trial No.143/13, framing the charge of Section 307 of I.P.C. against the applicant.2. Applicants counsel after taking me through the impugned order along with the copy of the charge-sheet from his brief argued that on taking into consideration the averments of the FIR as well as the interrogatory statement of the victim and other witnesses along with the MLC and X-ray report of the victim/complainant Kamaljeet Singh, as accepted in its entirety even then, the ingr...
Sheikh Azeem Vs. the State of M.P. Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Ju ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
1 Cr.R.No.171/05. 14.2.2014. Shri S.N.Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents, although served. This revision is listed today for consideration of IA No.838/2005, applicant's application for condoning the delay in filing this revision. Before considering such application, I have carefully gone through the impugned order and the revision memo. It is apparent that this revision is preferred against the order of Family court Jabalpur passed in MJ.No.318/2002, whereby the application of the respondents filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the quantum of monthly sum of maintenance granted earlier to respondent No.1 and 2 have been enhanced. Such order being passed in a proceeding of Section 127 of Cr.P.C. by the Family court, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajesh Shukla versus Smt. Meena W/o Rajesh Shukla and another reported in 2005(2)MPLJ483 is revise- able under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal R...
K.N.Shukla Vs. Director Kisan Kalyan and Krishi Vikas Judgement Given ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
W.P.No.5260/2010 14.02.2014 Shri S.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which nothing much is said except that the petitioner was posted as Joint Director (Finance) under the control of respondent No.3. He was relieved to join the services on his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh at Raipur. Certain earned leaves were sanctioned to him. A direction was issued by this Court for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Additional Director. The allegations are made that the interim stay was granted by this Court in the matter of eviction of petitioner from Government quarter. Nothing is said in the writ petition whether the petitioner is performing any duty in any department and is entitled to any salary from the State of Madhya Pradesh. On what count, the petitioner has been harassed, is not clear. From t...
Mankunwar Bai (Dead) Th:lrs. Dharamchand Vs. Ram Singh (Dead) Th:lrs. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
....1 R.P.No.665 of 2013 Mankuwar Bai Ram Singh 14.02.2014 Shri Saket Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioner. I.A.No.4753 of 2013 Application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the matter was decided by this Court on 2.7.2002 and Mankuwar Bai has died on 24.5.2005, so there was no question of any abatement. The application is misconceived and is accordingly filed. This application is filed seeking review/recall of judgment dated 2.7.2002 passed in Second Appeal No.333 of 1989 solely on the ground that on the date of hearing of the appeal i.e.2.7.2002, the sole respondent was dead while the appeal was allowed and the decree was passed against a dead person. It is submitted that this fact was not within the knowledge of the appellant so the application for substitution of legal heirs could not be filed. Now the appellant has filed this application for review of the aforesaid order on the aforesaid ground. Notice of the application was issued to the re...
Ramsharan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
W.P.No.1366/2014 14.02.2014 Shri A.P.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer waives service on behalf of respondents and accepts the notice. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue on a revision filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness and validity of order dated 20.02.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, dismissing the revision of the petitioner as barred by limitation. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision taken by the authorities was not within knowledge of the petitioner and when he came to know about passing of such order, he applied for the certified copy, and filed the revision immediately thereafter along with an application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner did not consider all these aspects and rejected the revision o...
Ram Pratap Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
1 MCRC.4304/2009 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA MCRC NO.4304/2009 Ram Pratap Vs. State of M.P. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sanjeev Mishra, counsel for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Shri M. Adil Usmani, counsel for the Objector. ORDER (Passed on 13th February, 2013) The applicant Ram Pratap has moved the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings of the Case No.6045/2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar, especially the order dated 4.10.2008 passed by the revisionary Court i.e. Second Additional Judge to the VIth Additional Judge, Sagar.2. The facts of the case in short is that a charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14.12.2006 against the applicant. On 14.2.2007 th...
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Proprietor Shri Mohan Road Lines Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
Civil Revision No.44/2006 14.02.2014 Shri Nilesh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2, although served. Service report of notice issued to respondent No.3 is still awaited. Shri Aditya Singh, learned PL for respondent no.4. On behalf of the applicant this petition is preferred under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2005, (Ann. A-3) passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in MJ.No.11/05 whereby his application filed under Order 33, Rule 1 (1) of the CPC permitting him to prosecute the impugned suit as indigent person has been dismissed. On perusing the provision of Order 33, Rule 1, r/w Rule 5 of CPC, I have found that the impugned application has been dismissed by the aforesaid trial court under Order 33, Rule 5 of the CPC and the order of rejection passed under such provision is made appealable under Clause (na) to Rule 1 of Order 43 of CPC. In view of availability of remedy of miscellaneous appeal agains...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »