Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Randhir Singh Vs. State of M.P. through P.S. Rajendra Nagar, Indore (M ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant Randhir Singh has prayed for quashment of the order dated 30.4.2013 passed by the JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case 773/04 rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. for discharging the applicant from offence under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC registered against him. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution was that Police Station Rajendra Nagar was proceeding against the accused in Crime No.163/81 and the FIR had been filed and crime was registered at No.178/81 for offence under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Considering the First Information Report and the final report of the investigation, there was no other documents available and the Presiding Officer of the previous Court had directed the police superintendent, Indore to file the documents available with the investigating agency, however, there was no document filed till date; despite which t...
Shiva and Another Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Shubhada R. Waghmare, J. 1. By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.PC, the applicants Shiva and Raghu have moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in Criminal Case No. 261/13 registered by Police Station, Petlawad, Distt. Jhabua for offence under Sections 342, 366,450, 376 (gha), 506 of the IPC and Section 25-B of the Arms Act. 2. Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that although this was second application moved on behalf of the applicants, the case was one of false implication and there had been a cross-case filed by the accused against the complainant party and in fact, the complainants had also raped woman belonging to the family of the accused and hence the dispute had arisen. In fact, the complainant-Mukesh was relative of the accused persons and both of them were married and having children. Counsel vehemently urged the fact that the offence would not be made out against these applicants since the offence of rape has been alle...
Ashish Kumar Vs. State of M.P through Vishesh Police Isthapna, Lokayuk ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
U.C. Maheshwari J. 1. On behalf of the applicant/ accused, this revision is preferred under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2014 passed by the Special Court, constituted under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, ( in short `the Act') Shahdol in Special Case No.1/10 whereby his application filed under section 311 of the Cr.P.C to recall the examined witness Rajendra Prasad Sharma (PW 1) and extend him the opportunity of cross-examination, has been dismissed. 2. The trial of the aforesaid case with respect of the charge of some offence of the Act is pending against the applicant and on earlier occasion, the in-chief of the aforesaid witness was recorded but after recording such in-chief, instead to cross-examine the witness on behalf of the applicant, his counsel prayed for adjournment on different ground, on which, treating such stated grounds to be sufficient, the case was adjourned on various occasions as stated in the impugned order an...
Ramesh Giri Vs. Dheeraj Gobhuj
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Ramesh Giri has challenged the order dated 09/1/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in criminal revision No.11/2013 upholding the order of the trial Court and dismissing the objection raised by the accused petitioner regarding insufficiently stamped document. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the respondent complainant had filed a complaint for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred as the Act ) against the petitioner accused for settling a loan account with a Cooperative Society. The accused petitioner resisted the complaint by taking up a defence that a blank cheque was fraudulently obtained by respondent complainant and later on misused to file the present complaint. It came about that, while recording of the evidence of the complainant, he wanted a document dated 25/3/2011 to be marked as Exhibit P/1. The present petitioner accused objected to the documen...
Ghanshyam Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2001 passed by the learned Special and Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial No.50/2000 (Atrocities) whereby the accused/appellant Ghanshyam Singh Raghvuanshi was convicted under Section 450, 376(1) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 [for brevity the Act ] and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 450 of IPC and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 376(1) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Act respectively with default stipulations. It was also ordered that on depositing the total amount of fine of Rs.5,500/-, same be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. 2. As per the prosecution story, the incident occurred on 28.04.1999 at about 11 am. At the relevant point of ...
Dhanwan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh through Chief Secretary, Home Mini ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. By means of this petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is none else but the detenu, has impugned the order dated 20th September, 2013 marked as Annexure-P/2, passed by the Under Secretary Govt. of M.P., Home Department, Bhopal under Section 12 (1) of the National Security Act 1980 by confirming the order dated 1st August, 2013 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the District Magistrate Guna for keeping the petitioner in detention for a period of one year from the date the petitioner is taken into custody, i.e. till 1/8/14. 2. The facts leading to the case may be summed up as under: On receiving the report from the Superintendent of Police, Guna vide Annexure P/3 dated 30/7/13 duly annexed with the list of criminal backgrounds and considering the same, the District Magistrate on 1st August, 2013 passed an order of detention in regard to the petitioner herein, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 (2) of the National Se...
Makhija Construction Company, Indore Vs. Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
1. Petitioner is a partnership firm. Respondent No.1 - Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya DAVV. Indore issued notice inviting tender for construction of 200 bedded girls hostel at IET Campus, Khandwa Road, Indore. The bid of petitioner was the lowest, therefore, it was accepted and a work order was issued in favour of petitioner after execution of contract. 2. The case of petitioner is that it completed the work and a completion certificate was issued to petitioner vide Annexure P/4. During the progress of work, a fixed percentage of amount was deducted from the running bills towards security deposit and the total of this deduction comes to Rs.32,82,716/- and according to petitioner, he is entitled to get the refund of said amount. Petitioner further submitted that after submission of final bill and as per said bill, petitioner was entitled to get Rs.36,03,477/- as the net amount after deducting of welfare cess, VAT and commercial tax. However, instead of paying the amount, respondent No.2 - ...
Paraschand s/o Bherulal Jain and Others Vs. Rao Rajendra Singh and Ano ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
S.C. Sharma, J: 1. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri A. S. Kutumble, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Anand Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19-2-2014 passed in COS No. 15-A/2012. By the aforesaid order, the trial Court has allowed the application for amendment preferred under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial Court has erred in law and in fact in allowing the amendment application in spite of the fact that the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff was having the knowledge of the facts which were mentioned in the amendment application and the plaintiff could have raised the matter before commencement of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashment of the aforesaid order. 4. On the other hand, learned Sr. Coun...
Peoples College of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bhanpur Vs. U ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the validity of order dated 31.7.2013, Annexure P18, passed by respondent no.2 Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India rejecting their application for increase of seats in MS (General Surgery) course for the academic session 2013-14. According to petitioner no.1 People's College of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal, it is a constituent unit of petitioner no.2 People's University, Bhopal. On 27.4.2012 they had applied for increase of seats in MS (General Surgery) course for the academic session 2013-14. Acting upon the application, respondent no.2 appointed assessor vide order dated 20.11.2012. The assessor conducted inspection of the petitioners' college on 4.12.2012. Thereafter respondent no.2, relying upon the assessor's report, issued a show cause notice dated 4.2.2013 as to why the application for increase of seats be not rejected on account of following ...
Baijnath Singh and Another Vs. Jagdish and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
1. This appeal by defendants under Section 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28/2/2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Civil Appeal No. 31-A/2001; reversing the judgment and decree dated 15/10/2001 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Sabalgarh in Civil Suit No. 33-A/1998; by which though on merits the trial Court has recorded positive findings in favour of plaintiffs; however, dismissed the suit while answering issue No. 4 as regards pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. First appellate Court has affirmed the findings of the trial Court on appeal by plaintiffs on merits of the suit as well as set aside the judgment of the trial Court on issue No. 4 relating to pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether, the first appellate Court was justified reversing the findings of the trial Court as regards pecuniary jurisdiction? 3. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »