Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal D. Remeteke Vs. State of MP & Ors.
Law laid down - Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 6 and Sec.35 – Section 6 deals with ‘functions’ of State Bar Council which includes certain functions relating to determining/entertaining case of misconduct of an Advocate. The procedure to impose punishment is laid down in Sec.35 of the Act. An Advocate can be punished only as per legislative mandate ingrained in Sec.35 of the Act. Sec.6 does not provide any procedure to punish an Advocate. Procedure is laid down in Sec.35 of Full Judgment
Nikunj Shivhare Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Smt. Chhaya Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. & Others
Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu Vs. State of M.P. and another
In Reference (Suo Motu) Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Nagendra Singh and another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Badri Prasad Tiwari v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
State of M.P. and another Vs. Ravi Mohan Trivedi
Rajendra Kumar Gautam Vs. State of MP
Law laid down - 1. Departmental inquiry and FIR/Criminal case based on same facts/incident – In every case, it cannot be said as a rule of thumb that exoneration in departmental enquiry on merits must result into setting aside of FIR. If it is found on merits that there is no contravention of the provision of the Act in the departmental inquiry, the continuance of trial of person concerned can be treated as an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Full Judgment
Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Govind Singh Yadav (dead) Versus Dilip Singh Yadav & Ors.
Law laid down - When the property is self-acquired and the owner died intestate, that property would devolve in Class-1 heirs equally as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not as per Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act for the reason that Section 6 relates to co-parcenary property. Full Judgment
Bhagwan Singh S/o Bherusingh and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - Recording of Dying Declaration by Investigating Officers - Held - Regulation No.742 of M.P. Police Regulation stipulating assessment of condition of injured by Medical Officer before recording such dying declaration needs to be adhered to. Further, it should also be explained as to why the service of Magistrate could not be requisitioned for recording of dying declaration. Case involves allegations of committing triple murder - Role of Investigating Officer found to be extremely unprofessional, with not only major lapses Full Judgment
Swarit Verma Vs. Kanchan Verma
Law Laid down - Provisions of Section 13-B (2) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955, is directory not mandatory and the court dealing with the matter, has jurisdiction to waive cooling-off period of six months. Full Judgment
Harihar Mishra vs. Vinay Kumar Bhavsar & another
Law Laid Down - When evidence has not been led before the trial court, the question of leading additional evidence under section 391 of Code does not arise. Full Judgment
Bherulal Versus Central Government
Law laid down - Applicability of bar as provided under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in case of application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Admittedly, the provisions of the Act have harsher provisions for sentencing and even harsher when it comes to bail, as has been provided under Section 37 of the Act. In the case of Murleedharan v. State of Kerala, while dealing with a similar provision, Section 41-A of Full Judgment
Dilip Sisodia vs. State of M.P. and others
Law laid down - 1. Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 (NSA Act) – Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India – Challenge to the order of detention at preexecution stage – Scope is limited and can be called in question if (i) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed, (ii) that it is sought to be executed against the wrong person, (iii) that it is Full Judgment
NAGRIK UPBHOKTA MARGDARSHAK MANCH THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT DR. P.G. NAJPANDE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Kirat Lodhi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law laid down - (1). Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceeding under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 cannot be entertained after lapse of sufficient time and can be dismissed on ground of delay and laches – Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 was issued in the year 2018 and pursuant thereto, the award was passed on 05.03.2020, but challenging the said acquisition proceeding, the writ petition Full Judgment