Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
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
Ellora Paper Mills Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down:- Application preferred u/s 14 read with Section 11 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking termination of the mandate of originally constituted Arbitral Tribunal and appointment of a new Arbitrator. The question requires answer is whether sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act of 1996 would apply to arbitration proceeding which had already commenced prior to introduction of the amendment by Act 3 of 2016 with effect from 23.10.2015. In other words, whether sub-section (5) Full Judgment
M/s K & J Projects Private Limited Versus Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation & anr.
AICONS Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation & anr.
Preeti Singh Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Suraj Pal Singh Rathor vs. M.P. High Court and another
Law laid down - The scope of interference in a writ petition against the order of punishment passed in the departmental inquiry is limited. The Court does not sit in appeal against the order passed in the departmental inquiry. Unless it is shown by the petitioner that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure or there was any violation of the principles of natural justice, no interference in the inquiry proceeding is required. Interference in the departmental Full Judgment
Lavlesh Kumar Mishra Versus The Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and others
Law laid down:- Writ Appeal directed against the order of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition filed against order passed by the respondent-Bank accepting the resignation of the appellant. Taking note of the facts, if we consider letter of resignation dated 16.9.2017, it is found that this letter of resignation is unconditional one and without any kind of reservation and in fact it refers to Rule 10(1)(b)(i) of the Service Regulations and categorically states that “kindly accept my intention to discontinue Full Judgment
Teru s/o Gulla & three others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sarabjeet Singh Mokha Vs. The District Magistrate, Jabalpur & Ors.
Law laid down - 1. Detention order – based on stale incident – the detention order dated 11.05.2021 refers an old case of 2004 from which petitioner has been admittedly acquitted. There is no live nexus between the incident of 2004 and action for which detention order is passed. To this extent, the detention order is bad in law. 2. Preventive detention laws – background – law of preventive detention is recognized and authorized by Constitution because Constitution makers visualized that there Full Judgment
Amit Chaurasia Vs. The State of M.P. & another
Law laid down - Applying an exception for not conducting a regular departmental enquiry to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank. For major penalties there must be some strong and cogent reason with the Authority competent to impose such punishment and should be assigned in writing as to why enquiry is not reasonable and practicable to be held. Imposing major penalties applying the exception of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India is always a ground of Full Judgment
Devkaran Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - (A) Conviction only on the basis of dying declaration recorded under Section 32 of Evidence Act – Before convicting only on the basis of dying declaration, the Court must act with prudence and due caution and care and in case doubt arises, then it is an obligation to closely scrutinise all the relevant attendant circumstances. Judgments relied upon :– (1) Khushal Rao Vs. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 22]. (2) Panchdeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 2002 Full Judgment
Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Law laid down - FIR lodged under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act after coming to know that husband is going to marry another lady, alleging incidents occurred almost two years prior to the date of lodging the FIR and after filing suit for seeking decree of divorce under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage Act. The FIR is nothing but an afterthought and counter-blast to the suit filed by the husband for seeking decree of divorce. Full Judgment
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & others Versus M/s Krishna Gas Agency
Law laid down - A show cause notice to constitute the valid basis of a blacklisting order, such notice must spell out clearly, or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom, that there is intention on the part of the issuer of the notice to blacklist the noticee. Full Judgment