Madhya Pradesh Court January 2015 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.
Mausiya @ Imrat Lodhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhatarpur in Special Case No.55/2008, whereby the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 323, 323/34 and 452 of the IPC and sentenced to six months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- for each offence. It was also directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case, in short are that on 15.2.2008 at about 8:00 p.m. Nathua Basore was present at the house of one Santosh situated at village Sendhpa (Police Station, Bada Malhara, District Chhatarpur). The appellant alongwith co-accused Makhan went inside the house after preparation of causing hurt and assaulted Shakun Bai, Uma Bai, Pan Bai, Nathua and Santosh causing simple injuries to them. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed and matter was tried by the Special Court under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (herein...
Bindu @ Raghvendra and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 5.12.2007 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.42/2007, whereby all of them were convicted of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs.200/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.200/- respectively, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one month was also directed. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 21.12.2006, at about 8.35 p.m., the complainant Pawan Jharia (P.W.1) was present near his residence at Nai Basti, Subhasnagar, Ranjhi, Jabalpur. He had lent a sum of Rs.500/- to the appellant Bindu @ Raghvendra and thereafter, he was demanding the same from him. At about 8 p.m., he went to the shop of appellant Bindu @ Raghvendra to demand the amount. Bindu abused him with obscene words and started quarrelling with him. In the meantime, the appellants Nandu, brother of Bindu Jharia...
Ramanand Mishra Vs. Pradyumn Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-28-2015
1. Applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.1.2008 passed by the Court of Fifth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rewa in Criminal Appeal No. 421/2006, Ramanand Mishra v. Pradyumn Singh, confirming the judgment dated 12.12.2006 passed by the Special Court of JMFC, Rewa in Criminal Case No. 5895/2006, Pradyumn Singh v. Ramanand, whereby the applicant stands convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of which to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. 2. Having analyzed the evidence on record, both the Courts below found proved that the applicant had purchased tractor parts worth Rs. 52,358/- from the respondent s tractor shop at Rewa. The applicant paid the aforesaid amount by 5 cheques, of these cheques two cheques each Rs...
Rajkumar Rachandani Vs. The State of M.P and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
1. The petitioner, who was working as Forest Range Assistant at the relevant time, has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ventilating his grievance against the order dated 6.7.2002 (Annexure P/6) by which the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No.4, has imposed a penalty of withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect and directed recovery of Rs.1,02,349/- from the monthly salary bills of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said order, which has been dismissed on 16.12.2013 by the Conservator of Forest, respondent No.3. Hence, this writ petition was filed. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was working as Forest Range Assistant a show cause notice was issued to him by the respondent No.4 on 14.9.2000 asking him to show cause as to why the physical verification report of the Dy. Divisional Forest Officer, Lanjhi be not accepted and since the shortage in the...
Pratibha Kushram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.07.2014 as also the order dated 25.08.2014 by which the respondent No.5 is posted in place of the petitioner and by subsequent order the representation made by the petitioner against that order is rejected on the ground that the petitioner was substantially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, was promoted on the post of Superintendent of Hostel and was made to work as Hostel Superintendent in Scheduled Caste Pre-Metric Girls Hostel, Nainpur. Since the petitioner was substantively holding the post, which was vacated by one Smt. Sangeeta Kawde, without making any posting order in respect of the petitioner, the respondent No.5 could not have been posted on the said post. A representation was made by the petitioner but the same was not being considered, therefore, she was required to approach this Court by way of filing W.P. No.10558/2014, which writ petition was disposed of ...
Arjun Singh Parihar Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
1. This petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeks the following reliefs:- HINDI 2. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that his name has been wrongly removed from the voter list published in the ongoing Panchayat Elections of Gram Panchayat Gujarra, Janpad Panchayat Datia and therefore, he is unable to contest elections which is statutory right. 3. The undisputed fact which come to light from the pleadings in the petition are that on 18.10. 2014 registration authority deleted the name of the petitioner and his other family members whereafter the petitioner has not preferred any appeal within five days prescribed for the same under Rule 12 (5) of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (1995 Niyam for brevity). The appeal of the petitioner was infact preferred on 12.11. 2014 which was much after the prescribed period of five days. 4. It is not further disputed that notification under Rule 28 of the 1995 Rules has since been issued and the election process to t...
Dr. Dilip Kumar and Others Vs. State of MP and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
1. I.A. No. 318/15 seeking exemption from filing additional court fees is considered and allowed for reasons mentioned therein. Petitioners are permitted to prosecute this petition jointly. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been jointly filed by 49 petitioners, who hold the post of Professor/Assistant Professor and are working under the Higher Education Department in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 3. Short but significant question that arises in this petition is as follows :- "Whether the petitioners being Professor/Assistant Professor, who are enjoying the Pay Bands IV and III, can be deputed to discharge election duty under the Tahsildar, who enjoys comparatively much less pay scale, status and rank" Consequential question that further arises out of the abovesaid seminal question is as follows :- "If the above question is answered in negative, then why, and if the question is answered in affirmative, then to what relief, the petitioners are entitled to...
Union Bank of India Vs. Rajendra Wadhwa and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
1. This petition has been filed against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Camp at Jabalpur in Appeal No. 133/2011. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The question for consideration in the petition before this Court is interpretation of Rule 8 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred as to "the Act"). 2. The respondent No.1 had a credit (Hypothetication) and Bank Guarantee account with the petitioner bank. His account was classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA). The proceeding was initiated against respondent No.1 under the Act. A demand notice was issued to the respondent on 3.9.2007 under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Thereafter, a notice dated 21.11.2007 was issued by the bank for taking possession of the secured assets. In terms of notice the possession of secured assets had been taken on 7.12.2...
Ayaz Khan Vs. State of MP and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2015
1. This appeal under section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calls in question tenability of order-dated 26.4.2007 passed by the learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No.2323/2007(S), dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner. 2. Facts in brief goes to show that appellant herein was appointed as a daily wages draftsman in the office of Divisional Forest Officer vide order - Annexure A/1, in the year 1988. Thereafter, he continued to work as a draftsman and ultimately vide order-dated 7.6.1999 - Annexure Nos. A/3 and A/4, he was regularized on the post of draftsman. This was done in accordance to a policy formulated by the State Government for regularization of all such employees who were appointed prior to 31.1.1988. After this regularization in the year 1999, the appellant continued to work on the said post when the State Government issued a Circular on 12.3.2004 - Annexure P/10, in the record of the writ petition, whereb...
Munna Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-2015
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure P/1), order of confirmation dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure P/3) and further confirmation order dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure P/4) passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereafter referred to as "the Act", for brevity) on the ground that the aforesaid order is defective and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v. Police Commissioner and another reported in (1989) 2 SCC 370 and the Gwalior Bench decision of M.P. High Court in the case of Tahsildar Singh v. State of MP and others reported in 2010 (2) JLJ 56. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ratlam submitted a memorandum on 12.09.2014 to the District Magistrate, Ratlam for detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. It has been mentioned by the Superintendent of Police in the memorandum that the petitioner was a notorious criminal and is involved in n...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »