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.
Devendra Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. Since the common question of law is involved in these matters, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. 2. The core issue needs to be decided in this matter is whether the petitioners, Panchayat Secretaries, can be placed under suspension by the Collector ? 3. It is the common ground raised by the petitioners that the petitioners are Panchayat Secretary, whose service conditions are governed by Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011. As per these rules, the appointing authority of the petitioners is Chief Executive Officer. The petitioners are already absorbed as per these 2011 Rules. Thus, as per M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 199 (for brevity, the "DandA Rules"), the Collector is not competent to place the petitioner under suspension. 4. Shri D.P. Singh and Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the definiti...
Kirti Martin Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
1. On behalf of the applicant this second repeat petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.332/13, registered at P. S. AJJAK Sagar District Sagar for the offence under Section 376(D), 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (xii) and 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, in short the Act . 2. Earlier occasion on behalf of the applicant in this regard M. Cr. No.1601/13, was preferred. On taking up the same for hearing on 24.1.2014, the then arguing counsel instead to argue had pleaded no instruction, on which with the assistance of the case diary and the State counsel so also in presence of the counsel of objector/prosecutrix such M. Cr. C. was initially considered on merits in which it was found that the applicant does not deserve for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail, but in view of aforesaid pleading of no instruction of t...
Shamsher Bahadur Singh Chandel @ Golend Singh Vs. State of Madhya Prad ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
1. This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 20.8.2010 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sidhi in Special Case No. 13/2007 whereby the application filed by the complainant under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed and on the basis of compromise entered into between the applicant and complainant, the applicant has been acquitted to the charge under Section 341, 294 of the IPC only, however, the application to compound the offence under Section 324 of the IPC has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that complainant Mudrika Prasad Prajapati lodged a report against the applicant on 24.11.2006 regarding wrongful restraint, using filthy language and causing simple injuries by sharp edged weapon. After registration of Crime, during investigation it was found that the complainant was humiliated during the incident by the applicant by using ...
Shashkiya Mahavidhyalaya Shikshak Sangh Madhya Pradesh Vs. V.S. Sampat ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Rohit Arya, J: 1. This contempt petition is filed by Shashkiya Mahavidhyalayin Shikshak Sangh, Madhya Pradesh through its President Rakesh Shrivastava alleging non-compliance of order dated 21/11/2013 passed in W.P. No. 20357/2013 in the case of Smt. Kirshna Sharma and others v. State of M.P. and others) by the learned single Judge sitting at Principal Seat, Jabalpur. 2. Having perused the order complained of, three fold questions prima facie arise viz. (i) Whether, contempt petition can be filed at Gwalior alleging non-compliance of the order passed by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur; (ii) Whether, such contempt petition can be filed by a person who is neither petitioner nor respondent in the order passed by the Principal Seat, Jabalpur; and (iii) Whether, such contempt petition can be filed against persons who were not party to the writ petition decided by Principal Seat, Jabalpur by the order complained of. 3. As regards the first question, learned counsel for the petitioner submits ...
Gariba @ Naresh @ Ramnaresh and Others Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
1. The petitioners have knocked the door of this Court by preferring this revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973 being dis-satisfied with the order dated 12.2.2014 passed by the Special Judge, Bhind in Special Case No.122/2010, whereby application of the petitioners filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination has been rejected.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are facing trial for the charges under Section 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC before the Special Judge, Bhind. The prosecution has examined the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred an application under Section 311 of the Code for recalling the prosecution witnesses Anantram and Raghuveer for further cross-examination. The petitioners have preferred Cri. Revision No.269/2013 before this Court challenging the said order, which has been disposed of vide order dated 30.1.2014 with...
Dungar Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
By this revision under Section 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. petitioners Dungar Singh and Asha have challenged the order dated 28/11/2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Sessions Trial No. 162/2013 framing charges for offence under Section 306 and 498A/34 of the IPC. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that according to the prosecution case Laxmi, who is the second wife of petitioner Dungar Singh, has committed suicide by burning and she died on 29/7/2013. After investigation the charge was filed against the petitioners. The petitioners have moved an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge. However, the Trial Court had rejected the application and framed charges under Section 306, 498A/34 of the IPC against the petitioners. Hence, the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the offences cannot be made out against the petitioners, primarily because deceased Laxmi is not a legally wedded wife of the...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vayam Technologies Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 20-11-2013 by which mandate of the Arbitrator under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) has been terminated. 2. Background facts leading to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that a tender was invited on 17-1-2011 by the Director General of Police with a view to procure a software solution, namely, Integrated Data Management System. The respondent submitted its bid, which was accepted, and a purchase order dated 4-10-2011 was issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Police on behalf of the Inspector General of Police. Thereafter, an agreement dated 9-11-2011 was executed between the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and the respondent. The agreement was signed by the Director General of Police on behalf of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and the respondent. Clause 21 of the Agreement p...
Radheshyam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. By this revision petition under Section 397 r/w S.401 of the Cr.P.C. accused petitioner Radheshyam has challenged the order dated 02.03.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Sessions Trial No.60/12 framing charges for offence u/S.306 of the IPC against the petitioner. 2. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 01.01.2011 Sarpanch Radheshyam of village Athawakala received an information that there was a dead body lying near the Balaji Temple near the Jungle. The body belongs to an un known male person and merg was registered at No.21/11 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. The dead body was identified by the family members to be Kamlesh s/o Heeralal Sharma; aged 40 years, resident of Khajuria, police station Ratangarh, District-Neemuch. The merg intimation upon being investigated, it was found that the deceased Kamlesh had a wife Bhanvaribai, son Sanjay, brother Nandkishore and cousin Prahalad Sharma and Gulab Gurjer. The deceased Kamlesh was a driver by professi...
Edward Meganji and Others Vs. Sultan Singh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit challenging the order of the trial Court dated 19.9.2013 passed in C.S. No.17-A/2010 deciding the preliminary issue about valuation of the suit, court fee and jurisdiction. 2. The trial Court by the order under challenge has held that the petitioner-plaintiff is liable to pay the ad valorem court fee on the suit valuation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has alleged in the plaint that the sale deed was executed by Badri in violation of Section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the sale deed was without consideration, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the ad valorem court fee. 4. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that since the petitioner is claiming through Badri who had executed the sale deed and the petitioner is not in possession of the suit land, therefore, he...
Chandrabhan Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Police ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
B.D. Rathi J. 1. The present judgment shall govern the disposal of both the cases (Cr.R.No.165/1999 and Cr.A.No.169/1999). Criminal Revision No.165/1999 under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short The Code ) has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 30-03-1999 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.154/1996 whereby respondent No.2 (Ram Manohar Singh Sengar) has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). Criminal Appeal No.169/1999 under Section 374 of the Code has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30-03-1999 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.154/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecutio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »