Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Rajendra Mahadik Vs. Devendra Mahadik
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-2014
Sujoy Paul, J: 1. The petitioner/defendant No. 3 is aggrieved by order dated 18.2.2014 passed in Case No. 73A/2009 Civil Suit by Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, whereby his application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code dated 3.1.2014 is rejected. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction (Annexure P-2) on 1.4.2009. The notices were issued to the other side. The acknowledgments of notices issued by the court for defendant No. 3 were not received back by the court. 3. The court below on 22.4.2009 passed a detailed order recording that an effort was made to serve the petitioner/defendant No. 3 by sending notice by registered post. The envelope is received back with the endorsement that "at the time of distribution, the petitioner was not found". The court below after perusal of that endorsement opined that the petitioner's shop is situated just in front of the court where he can be served in 15 minutes. Resultantly, the court below directed th...
M/s. Sukhdev Prasad Goenka Vs. M/s. Olpherts Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2014
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J: 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 14.03.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.4001/2010. The appellant was respondent No.3 in the said writ petition filed by M/s Olpherts Pvt. Ltd. 2. As regards the appellant, the learned single Judge found as of fact that the appellant had failed to furnish No Dues Certificate in spite of being given opportunity to do so before 21.06.2004 vide notice dated 11.06.2004. In fact, the appellant failed to produce No Dues Certificate even at the time of hearing of the proceedings before the Authority on 03.09.2004. On this indisputable facts, the learned single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant for grant of fresh mining lease. 3. The argument of the appellant is that the learned single Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The argument proceeds that as per the said Sub- Rule, non-...
Bhura @ Balram Gurjar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-2014
N.K. Gupta, J.The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26.3.2012 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.711/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-SectionActSentenceFine amountSentence in default of payment of fine302IPCLife imprisonmentRs.5,000/-R.I. for two years.201IPCR.I. for three yearsRs.1,000/-R.I. for six months.377IPCR.I. for seven yearsRs.3,000/-R.I. for one year. All the sentences to run concurrently.2. The prosecution's case in short is that on 13.9.2010 the deceased Golu @ Gopal S/o Hari Singh was residing with the complainant Ramesh Pal at village Bilkhiriya. The complainant Ramesh Pal was co-brother of Hari Singh. On 13.9.2010 at about 9:00 p.m., Golu @ Gopal went to see the procession of Ganesh festival and thereafter, he did not come back. Even on search, he could not be traced. On 14.9.2010 at about 6:30 a.m. Kailash vendor of tea came to the house o...
B.B. Mathur and Another Vs. Subhash Saxena and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition for review of the judgment dt.24th April 2014 passed in Writ Appeal No.327/2013. 3. This court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the appellants and confirmed the order passed by the Writ Court. 4. The respondent No.1 was appointed as Sub Engineer in Special Area Development Authority (SADA) Malajkhand on 24.6.1982. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dt. 3.11.1987 w.e.f. 7.9.1987. He was on probation for a period of one year. He was transferred to SADA Chirmiri, that order was modified by another order dt.20.12.1988 and he was posted as Assistant Engineer at Gwalior Development Authority (GDA). A provisional gradation list was published by the GDA showing the position of Assistant Engineer on 30.6.1995. In the aforesaid gradation list the name of the respondent No.1 was placed at S.No.2 and his date of appointment as Assistant Engineer was shown as 7.9.1987. In the remark column, it was mentioned that servi...
Raju and Others Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
1. With the consent of both the parties, case is being heard finally at motion stage. 2. Heard arguments both the parties. 3. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashment of the order dated 20-2-2013 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara in S.T. No 125/2010, whereby the additional medical report filed by Dr.A.S.Bansal was taken on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits the leaned Trial Court has committed error in taking additional documents as medical report on record, whereas the said documents were not earlier filed along with the charge sheet. Further the order passed under Section 311 of the Cr.PC is totally erroneous. Counsel further contends that the documents along with application, dated 22-12-2011, in connection with bed head ticket and papers concerning prescription by City Hospital, Jabalpur, ought not to have been allowed in the case because the prosecution could not be permitted to fill up lacun...
R.K. Kartikeya Vs. Rahul Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-16-2014
B.D. Rathi J: 1. By invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') calling in question the order of cognizance dated 11-05-2011 passed in private complaint case by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Guna against the petitioner and issuance of bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.1,000/- against the petitioner for his presence before the Court on 20-06-2011. 2- The brief facts of the case are that respondent -Rahul Jain was ex-councillor of Municipality, Guna. On 12-09-2006 in daily news paper "Raj Express" one notice was published inviting tender for repairing cover body for vehicle cargo 709. Cut off date for submitting the tender was fixed as 26th September, 2006. Prior to that no administrative and financial sanction has been taken by the petitioner who was the then CMO of Municipality, Guna. Thereafter, tenders were submitted by three different firms. T...
Sneh Farms and Agro Products Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
S.C. Sharma, J: 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16-3-2012, passed by 21st Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 19-A/2011 (Pankaj Agrawal v. Shri Shyam Kuril and two others). The learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the application preferred under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 filed by the present petitioner (defendant No. 2). Facts of the case reveal that plaintiff Pankaj Agrawal-respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition, has filed a suit for grant of declaration and injunction under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as stated in the plaint, based upon an agreement dated 15-4-2011. The petitioner has preferred an application under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 stating therein that the document dated 15-4-2011 has not been properly stamped and, therefore, in the light of the statutory provisions as contained under section 33 of the Indian S...
Manoj Verma Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
B.D. Rathi, J: (1) This appeal has been preferred under Section under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2 W.A.172/14 (Manoj Verma Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) 2005 having being aggrieved by an order dated 17/6/2014 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No.2902/2014 (Manoj Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others). (2) The facts leading to filing the appeal may be summarized as under:- Appellant- Manoj Verma who claims himself to be Reserve Inspector having acquired the status of a Gazetted Officer was charge-sheeted under the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur alleging misconduct committed in discharge of his official duty, while posted at Jabalpur, as per Annexure-P/1, dated 5/5/2014 which was served upon him through the respondent No.3-S.P.,Gwalior. Questioning competency of the authority in issuing charge-sheet on the strength of the grounds which would again be taken up for consideration in the subsequent paras of...
State of M.P. Vs. Ranjana Yogi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
1. Heard on IA No.3889/2014, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The delay is of 696 days. 3. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2095/2012 (s). The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge taking into consideration large number of cases decided on the issue in favour of the petitioner and the fact that the issue involved had already attained finality on the basis of the view taken by the Supreme Court. 4. Challenging the said order, which was passed on 16.05.2012, this appeal has been filed in which the following averment has been made for seeking condonation of delay: - "1. That the appellants have filed Writ Appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the order dated 16.05.2012 passed in WP No.2095/2012 (s) (Annexure A/1) by Hon'ble Single Judge whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner has been allowed. It is most humbly subm...
In reference received from Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur (M.P) and Anoth ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
N.K. Gupta, J.1. Since Criminal Reference No.8/2013 referred by the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur and the Criminal Appeal No.2728/2013 filed by appellant Arvind alias Chhotu Thakur have arisen from the same judgment dated 30.9.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in ST No.86 of 2013, both the matters are hereby disposed off by a common judgment.2. Vide judgment dated 30.9.2013 the learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T.No.86 of 2013 convicted the the appellant Arvind @ Chhotu Thakur for offences punishable under Sections 376-A, 302, 363, 201 of I.P.C and Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') death sentence was awarded for offence under Section 376-A and 302 of I.P.C whereas, five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- was inflicted for each count for remaining I.P.C offences and no separate sentence has been given for offence under Section 6 of 'POSCO Act'.3. The prosecution's ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »