Madhya Pradesh Court February 2014 Judgments
Satish Kumar Verma Vs. Gulshan Bamra Judgement Given By: Hon'ble the C ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
W.P.No.14159/2006 & CONC No.353/2011 W.P.No.14159/2006 & CONC No.353/2011 28.02.2014 Petitioner in person. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.8. The issue brought before us in this public interest litigation is about unauthorized occupation and encroachment on Government land which has been earmarked for the construction of Medical University. In spite of directions given by this Court in the present proceedings it appears that quite a few structures are still standing on KhaSr.Nos.316 and 317, which is part of the said project of Medical University. Because of these obstructions the construction of Medical University is being delayed indefinitely, which cannot be countenanced. The construction of Medical University is in larger public interest and it cannot brook delay. When called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the State submits that the structures, which could not be removed from KhaSr.N...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
M.Cr.C.No.2939/2014 28/02/2014 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Rajnish Choubey, PL for the respondent/State. Heard finally. This is the fiRs.application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 10/02/2014 in connection with Crime No.15/2014 registered at P.S.Tendukheda, District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under section 306/34 of IPC. As per prosecution it is alleged against this applicant that he pressurized the deceased Rajeshwari to change her statement before the trial Court in the trial said to have been initiated on her report therefore, she committed the suicide. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that though Suresh, father of prosecutrix alleged in this case that deceased was under pressure due to aforesaid incident and applicant pressurizing her to change the statement but Suresh himself has not stat...
Tag this Judgment!Kallu Tiloriha Vs. Mulloo Sahu Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justic ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Second Appeal No.1612 / 2007. 28/02/2014. Shri A.P.Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.12-A/2007 by learned District Judge, Panna (MP) confirming the judgment and decree dated 16-01- 2007 passed in Civil Suit No.63-A/06 by learned Third Civil Judge Class- II, Panna (MP) rejecting the suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction and further the learned lower appellate court rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Learned trial court has rejected the suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the suit property as he has not made any pleading about the Will executed by his uncle in his favour and even did not file the Will. Learned lower appellate cou...
Tag this Judgment!Buddha Prakash Vs. Gouri Bai @ Lakheri Bai Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Second Appeal No.1631 / 2007. 28/02/2014. Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.18-A/2006 by VI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Chhatarpur (MP) confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.7-A/03 by learned Civil Judge Class-II, Loundi (MP) dismissing the suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction claiming his right over the agricultural land belonging to joint Hindu family. Both the courts below have given concurrent finding that the plaintiff has purchased a land bearing survey no.141/2, 142/3 and 683/1, area 0.809 hectare in his name from the income of joint Hindu family and also land bearing survey No.14, area 0.223 hectare in the name of his son as his share from the joint Hindu family property and...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Maihar the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhagwat Prasad Judgement G ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Criminal Appeal No.167/2014. 28-02-2014. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate for the appellant-State of M.P.Vide order-dated 10.1.2014, leave to appeal was allowed and the same was directed to be converted as a criminal appeal and be posted for admission. Consequent whereof, matter is taken up for admission. Appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondent in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC. Judgment of acquittal was passed by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class Maihar District Satna on 5.1.2012 in Criminal Case No.110/2005 (arising out of Crime No.142/2005).Respondent was tried for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC. The prosecution story is that on 8.4.2005 at 5 p.m.when accused Bhagwat Sahu was prevented by complainant Banshgopal from digging in his agriculture field, the accused gave a beating with lathi and committed marpeet with the complainant who sustained injuries. On complaint, offence under Section 323 ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Herschel Dafal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Criminal Revision No.823/2011 26.2.2014 Ku. Hema Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Heard on IA No.9814/2011, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As per the office report, there is a delay of 100 days in filing the present revision. After considering the reason of delay, it appears that a false pretext has been created. It is alleged that the certified copy of the impugned order was sent by the applicant to his counsel at Jabalpur by registered post and after receiving the certified copy of the impugned order, the same was misplaced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and therefore when the applicant got intimation that the certified copy of the impugned order was misplaced, again certified copy of the impugned order was taken and therefore the present revision could be filed with a delay of 100 days. However, looking to the reason, it would be necessary that an affidavit of the concerned counsel should ...
Tag this Judgment!Mosam Lal Pradhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Writ Petition No.19316/2013 26/02/2014 Shri S.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Chaurasiya, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents-State. Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. This writ petition is directed against the order of supersession of the petitioner as against the respondent No.6,7 and 8. The writ petition was admitted for hearing. However, some good sense prevailed in the mind of authorities and the order of promotion of juniORS.superseding the persons like petitioner, was recalled. Against the said order, those who were promoted, had approached this Court in number of writ petitions and all those writ petitions were entertained. The interim stay was granted. Finally, this Court has passed the order on 7.1.2014 in W.P.No.8610/2013 (s) holding that opportunity of hearing was required to be given to those who were promoted before cancellation of their orders of promotion. In view of this, this Court has quashed the order of...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chameliya Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
W.P.No.20872/2013 26.02.2014 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer appeared and waves notices on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. The only grievance of the petitioner is that an order of mutation was passed in her favour on 6.12.2004 by the Tahsildar Devsar, after obtaining the report from the revenue authorities. Without there being any competent sanction from the competent authority, the successor of the then Tahsildar took a decision and reviewed the order passed on 6.12.2004 vide his order dated 19.2.2010. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Collector by way of filing a revision, but the said revision was dismissed. The petitioner approached the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa, and thereafter filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which too has been dismissed on 5.8.2013. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rajmati JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
WRIT PETITION No.8654/2011 1 26.02.2014 Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mention...
Tag this Judgment!Dan Singh Alias Digvijay Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgeme ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.36/2011 Dan Singh @ Digvijay Singh VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Prakash Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A. for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (Passed on the 26th day of February, 2014) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the judgment dated 28.9.2010 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in criminal appeals No.322/2009 and 349/2009, whereby the matter was remanded back to the trial Court to give an opportunity to the prosecution, so that hand-writing expert may be examined and after recording his evidence, the statements of the appellants be taken under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to that fact and thereafter, case be decided afresh.2. The prosecution's case, in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »