Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 55 (1.65 seconds)
Documents citing Devendra Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2021

Pradeep Kumar Rai vs The Returning Officer on 16 August, 2023

In Hanumant Singh v. State of M.P., (2012) 3 MP LJ 191, this Court considered the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 82 : AIR 1993 SC 367, Shri Satyananrain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh and opined that secrecy of ballot cannot be lightly tinkered. In a democratic set up, secrecy of ballot is of utmost importance and in absence of very specific pleadings of material facts and particulars supported by contemporaneous evidence, neither election can be quashed nor recount can be ordered.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Badam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 November, 2023

5. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Judgment of co-ordinate bench this Court in the case of Gaya Prasad Sharma Vs. The State of M.P. vide order dated 09.10.2015 passed in WP No.1173/2012 , in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-11-2023 13:00:01 3 the case of Hanumant Singh Vs State of M.P. vide order dated 28.10.2015 passed in Cr. A. No.693/2015 and in the case of Rameshwari Malviya Vs. Sushila Dhruve order dated 26.07.2012 passed in Cr.R. No.2178/2011.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Verma - Full Document

Abdul Rajjak @ Rajjak Pahalwan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 November, 2024

9. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that the order of framing charge cannot be quashed at this stage because the trial court at the time of framing charge has to see whether the material produced before the court prima-facie sufficient to register an offence or not. The Court at the time of framing of charge does not evaluate the sanctity of evidence. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 -
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Smt. Sonu Amit Sharma vs Smt. Bhagwati Sharma on 1 October, 2024

2. Assailing the said order being against the settled principal of law as Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 19-11-2024 10:34:59 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:18792 2 WP-4303-2024 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in catena of its judgments in the matters of Ganeshram Gayari Vs. Bagdiram and Others reported in 2013 (2) MPLJ447; Anita W/o Shri Raju Vs. Saki W/o Anant Singh reported in 2016 (3) MPLJ 437 , Hanumant Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 191, Netlal Panche Vs. Santosh Matre & Others reported in 2014 (4) MPLJ 619, Ramesh Chandra Bhilala Vs. Bashir & Others reported in 2011 (1) MPHT 35, Devkinandan Dubey Vs. Purshottam Sahu reported in 2019 (2) MPLJ 645 and Rani Marsakole Vs. State of MP and Others reported in 2016 (2) MPLJ 457 , prayer was made for setting aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

Rajeshwari Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 2 January, 2024

In this regard the decisions in the cases of Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana, (1985) SCC(Cri) 445, Santosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 3 MPHT 55 and Hanumant Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2016 (2) MPLJ 652 may be referred. (10) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the conviction of the appellant Rajeshwari will not affect his service career. Meanwhile, the appellants are directed to maintain good behaviour. (11) The appellants are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within three months from today failing which he shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo remaining sentence of imprisonment imposed by trial Court. Fine amount, if any already deposited, shall be adjusted against the enhanced fine amount.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A K Paliwal - Full Document

Dharmendra Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 July, 2021

The aforesaid question is no more res-integra in view of the common judgment dated 07.07.2021 passed in bunch of petitions including W.P. No.9484/202021 (Hanumant Singh Lodhi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) where similar orders of confiscation as impugned herein were quashed on the ground that once the mining offence of illegal transportation stands closed and concluded by payment of penalty/compounding, the same cannot be reopened on the strength of the interim order dated dated 18.09.2020 passed in PIL W.P. No.7695/2015.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Nagu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next