Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranchod Jirati Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Shramik Janta Sangh & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Ors.
State of M.P. v/s. Irfan & Anr.
Law laid down - Held: Conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 376(DB) of IPC – (i) Prosecutrix, a child of seven years of age was proved to have been subjected to violent gang rape by appellants and prosecutrix was also inflicted life-threatening injuries. (Significant paragraph nos. – 46 to 51) (ii) Conviction under Section 376(DB) of IPC and sentence of hanging by trial Court – Affirmed – Sentencing Policy Discussed – Legislature has imposed death penalty in incidents of child sexual abuse Full Judgment
Shailesh Kumar Sonwane Vs. State of M.P. and others
Balram Dhakar vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Ravi @ Toli Vs. State of M.P.
M/s. Upadhyay Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and others. Vs. M/s. Prism Infra Projects and others.
Law laid down - Madhya Pradesh High Court is not Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore, appeal under Section 37(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will lie before Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction i.e. before District Judge or Additional District Judge. Full Judgment
In. Ref. (Suo Moto) Vs. Yogesh Nath @ Jogesh Nath
Yogesh Nath @ Jogesh Nath Vs. The State of MP
Suresh Kumar Kurve Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - 1. Non-grant of increment during period of suspension does not amount to penalty as increments are paid for period spent on duty in a time-scale. During suspension delinquent employee is not on duty, therefore, non-grant of increment during suspension will not amount to penalty. 2. Obiter is not binding but ratio decidendi have binding precedent. Full Judgment
Basant Shravanekar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others.
Law laid down - 1. Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 - The personal presence of councilors who have submitted the proposal/resolution before the Collector is not necessary. The Collector is best suited to decide the mode of verification but personal presence of councilors is not a statutory requirement. 2. Section 47(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961- 3/4 number of councilors moved a proposal for recalling the President. They attended the hearing before the Collector on two Full Judgment
M.P. Road Development Corporation Vs. The Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MORT & H) and another
Law laid down:- The M.P. Road Development Corporation challenged the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on a dispute arising out of a concession agreement executed between the Corporation and the respondent-Department, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-MPRDC under Section 16 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 contending that the dispute falls within the definition of ‘works contract’ over which the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 would have exclusive jurisdiction and therefore, the Full Judgment
Jagdish Chouhan (Baret) Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Law laid down - Disciplinary Proceedings – Show Cause notice. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. The appellant filed reply and denied the charges on merits by giving explanation on facts. The show cause notice aforesaid cannot be treated to be a notice/charge-sheet whereby departmental inquiry is initiated. Imposition of Minor Penalty - Procedure. Where allegations mentioned in the show cause notice are rebutted by giving factual explanation, a Full Judgment
Nandu S/o Galtha Pardi Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Pahalwan Singh @ Chimme Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
M/s Mold Tek Packaging Limited Vs. S.D. Containers
Hariprasad Bairagi Versus Radheshyam & Ors
Law laid down:- (i) Rules 24 & 32 of Rules Regarding Record of Rights (under M.P. Land Revenue Code) do not contemplate adjudication of title by Tahsildar. It is meant for recording “Consequence of Adjudication” and “Transfer of Ownership” for mutation purpose. Summary proceedings as contemplated in Rule 32 are only for the purpose of recording of rights of parties; and (ii) Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to test the correctness and genuineness of the Will; {Relied and Refeerred:-Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal Vs. Chetu Full Judgment
The State of M.P. & Ors. Versus Yogesh Pathak
Law laid down:- (i) If the purpose of the enquiry is not to find out the truth of the allegations of misconduct but to decide whether to retain the employee against whom a cloud is raised on his conduct such enquiry only serves as a motive for the termination. But where the enquiry is held wherein on the basis of the evidence a definite finding is reached at the back of the employee about his misconduct and such finding forms the Full Judgment
Smt. Manoj Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors
Law laid down:- 1. Government servants in service of any class (Class I to Class IV) who had given written undertaking promising to refund the excess amount are not immune from recovery. 2. However the quantum and nature of recovery in such cases is to be limited to the quantum and nature promised by the employee in the undertaking. 3. If the undertaking does not expressly provide for refund of interest over the principal amount then the interest cannot be recovered from the employee Full Judgment