Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
Pappu @ Shashikant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.5.1998 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh in Special Case No.136/1997 whereby, the appellant has been convicted of offences under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred as the Special Act ) and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine one month's simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecutions case in short, is that, on 20.10.1997 at about 7.00 p.m the prosecutrix (PW1) was working in a hut situated in her husband's field at Village Ghanshyampura (Police Station Batiagarh, District Damoh). At about 7.00 p.m the appellant went inside the hut and switched off the lamp which was burning inside the room and thereafter, he hugged the prosecutrix. On her shouting Ratan (PW2), husband of the prosecutrix and Rajkumar (PW3), son of the prosecutrix, came to...
Balveer Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26th June, 2004, passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha (M.P.) in S.T. No. 19/2004, whereby present appellant Balveer s/o Rajaram Dangi has been convicted of the offence under Sections 450 and 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and again for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer additional simple imprisonment of one on each count. 2. By the same impugned judgment and on the same set of evidence and findings, other accused Ravindra has been acquitted of the alleged charges. 3. The facts in short relevant for the decision of this appeal are that on dated 24/10/2003, at 6 p.m. prosecutrix, wife of Vishan Singh Dangi, having age of 25 years, went to the house meant in Khaliyan, situated at the agricultural field for collecting straw (Bhusa). When she was coming out of the room, Balveer Dan...
Veerendra Singh Rajak Vs. Seema Rajak
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2015
B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This first appeal assails the judgment dated 30.10.2014 passed by Additional Principal Family Court, Gwalior by which a petition for divorce filed by the husband/appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for brevity "Act") on the ground of cruelty has been rejected. 2. During the pendency of this case an application (I.A.No.1429/2015) has been moved jointly by the rival parties stating that they may be granted divorce by mutual consent on the terms and conditions as contained in this application. 3. Reading of the said I.A. filed jointly by the rival parties indicates that marriage between the appellant and respondent took place on 24.11.2008 whereafter due to strained relationship, allegations and counter allegations made by both the parties against each other, the matrimonial relationship became sour. The appellant/husband and respondent-wife started living separately since November/December 2009 and continue to do so till date. The rival parties have fu...
Purushottam Lal Dwivedi Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2015
1. The Petitioner, who was an Employee of the Respondents, had previously filed W.P.No.10261/2013(S) against the communication of an Order by which he was informed that he would retire from service w.e.f. 30.11.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner s date of birth is 24.7.1958 but the Respondents have wrongly recorded his date of birth as 26.11.1952 in the service record. It was alleged that in spite of the Petitioner s submitting all relevant documents before the Authorities, no decision was taken by the Authorities hence, the Petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.10261/2013(S), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 27.11.2013. However, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1460/2013 modified the Order passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter back to the Respondent-Authorities with a direction to the Age Determination Committee to decide the issue regarding the...
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2015
1. In this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, 1996'), the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 16.10.2006 passed by the trial Court by which the objection preferred by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act, has been rejected. The relevant facts which need mention, are stated infra. 2. The appellants invited tenders for ploughing and levelling work of the agricultural land of the farmers belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and persons living below the poverty line (BPL) under the "Swarnajayanti Grameen Rojgar Yojna"of the State Government. The tender of the respondent was accepted and an agreement was executed between the parties on 24.3.2003. Clause 11 of the agreement contained an arbitration clause, which reads as under:- HINDI 3. A dispute arose between the parties. The respondent filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act before the trial Court, which was allowed v...
Archit Agrawal and Others Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2015
Heard. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners/accused persons Archit Agrawal and Abhishek Hada being aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna, in Sessions Trial No. 141/2013. 2. The facts giving arise to this revision are that Sessions Trial No. 141/2013 (State v. Ranu Balmiki and others) is pending before the Sessions Judge, Guna for trial of offence under Sections 307/34, 302, 147, 148 of 149 of IPC read with Section 25/27 of Indian Arms Act. 3. Police Station, Guna, filed a supplementary charge-sheet against the accused Sattu @ Shatrughan in the same crime number which was later committed to the Sessions Court, hence, Sessions Trial No. 141-A/2013 has been registered. Court proceeded separate trial for the reason that in Sessions Trial No. 141/2013, thirteen witnesses were examined and Hon'ble the Supreme Court has given a specific direction to dispose the case within a stipulated time. Hence, the Sessions Judge, Guna vide order dated 16.06...
Satish and Another Vs. State Election Commission, Bhopal and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
1. Heard finally with consent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of MP State Election Commission dated 16/1/2015 countermanding the election to the post of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat Kansrod, Tehsil Pachore, District Rajgarh. 3. The case of petitioners is that the elections were notified under Rule 28 of MP Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (for short Rules, 1995) and nomination forms for the seat of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat Kansrod Tehsil Pachore were invited from 1/1/2015 to 7/1/2015. The scrutiny of nomination paper was scheduled for 8/1/15 and the polling was to take place on 22/2/2015. Further case of petitioners is that petitioner No. 2 had submitted the nomination paper and after its scrutiny the nomination paper of petitioner No. 2 was accepted. Petitioner No. 1 had objected to the inclusion of name of respondents No. 5 and 6 in the voter list and after enquiry name was deleted from voter list by the order of Sub Divisional Officer ...
Hemant Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-2015
P.K. Jaiswal, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the orders/notices dated 13.01.2014 and 17.09.2013 passed by the Collector (Mining), District Ujjain (respondent No.2), thereby intimating about the information of the leasedeed to be cancelled along with the confiscation of the deposited amount, in failure of submitting the environmental approval from State Environment impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). 2. Brief facts of the case are that a 'trade quarry' means a quarry for which the right to work is auctioned by the Collector was granted to the petitioner for a period of two years with effect from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2014 over an area of 4.00 hectare of village Hapakheda of District Ujjain for lifting of sand, because his highest bid of Rs.11,25,000/per annum was accepted by the Granting Authority. 3. The power to control the trade quarries mentioned in Rule 7 (1) of MP Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 shall vest with th...
Ramraj Patel and Another Vs. Hiralal Patel and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. This second appeal by the defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the judgment and decree dated 16 th July, 2004 passed in Civil Appeal No.40-A/2004 by the District Judge, Rewa arising out of judgment and decree dated 23.2.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.229-A/2000 by First Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Rewa. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of the family property alleging that the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant/appellant No.1 was having three wives. Out of the aforesaid wedlock the parties to the suit were born. The father of the appellants and the defendant No.1 were having certain properties at village Panti, Gaidi and Hardi. Some part of the property of village Hardi was given to son of the second wife of the father of plaintiffs and defendant No.1, but rest of the property was never partitioned. Since two other brothers of the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 were having no issues, they also gave their proper...
M/s. Tarnado Enterprises, Richhai and Another Vs. Union Bank of India ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the action of respondent No.3, the Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the matter of recovery proceedings regarding the decree obtained by the respondent-Bank, and is filed mainly claiming the following reliefs : 7.1. That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and may further be pleased to quash the orders dated 23.11.2005 and 06.11.2000 (Annexure P-7 and P-8) in the interest of justice. 7.2. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to hold that the Recovery Officer has acted beyond jurisdiction, authority and power in the matter and the entire action on part of respondents is bad in the eyes of law. 7.3. Any other writ/writs relief/reliefs, order/orders and direction/directions which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case be passed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »