Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/s.Shanti Construction Vs. M/s.Aavantika Gas Ltd & Ors.
Law laid down - 1. Constitution of India – Article 12 – Whether Avantika Gas Ltd (AGL) is an instrumentality/authority and amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court. As per averments of reply of AGL - it is a public company limited - a joint venture of two PSUs namely GAIL and HPCL - government does not hold share in AGL “directly” - government has no pervasive/deep control in the “day to day affairs” of AGLgovernment has no direct share holding Full Judgment
Swaran Vibha Pandey Versus State of M.P. and others
Law laid down - A Rules in nature of administrative instructions without any statutory force, cannot be said to be enforced by maintaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Administrative action - Executive Instructions, if are in conflict with statutory provisions, the later will prevail. But in absence of any conflict, both will prevail. Any departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail over statutory rule and constitutional provisions. Full Judgment
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