Filter by Date
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Ellora Paper Mills Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

AC, 100 of 2019, Judgment Date: Aug 27, 2021

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

M/s K & J Projects Private Limited Versus Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation & anr.

WRIT PETITION, 11239 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 27, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags Tenders
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

AICONS Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation & anr.

WRIT PETITION, 11371 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 27, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags Tenders
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Preeti Singh Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others

WRIT PETITION, 470 of 2011, Judgment Date: Aug 26, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Suraj Pal Singh Rathor vs. M.P. High Court and another

WRIT PETITION, 4985 of 2019, Judgment Date: Aug 25, 2021

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Lavlesh Kumar Mishra Versus The Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and others

WA, 497 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 25, 2021

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Teru s/o Gulla & three others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

MCRC, 38486 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 25, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags Arrest
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Sarabjeet Singh Mokha Vs. The District Magistrate, Jabalpur & Ors.

WRIT PETITION, 10085 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 24, 2021

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Amit Chaurasia Vs. The State of M.P. & another

WRIT PETITION, 3658 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 24, 2021

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Devkaran Vs. State of M.P.

Criminal Appeal, 333 of 2008, Judgment Date: Aug 18, 2021

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Criminal Revision, 521 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 18, 2021

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Ashish Agarwal vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

WRIT PETITION, 7126 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 18, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Suresh Vs. State of M.P.

Criminal Appeal, 463 of 2008, Judgment Date: Aug 17, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags Kidnapping
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & others Versus M/s Krishna Gas Agency

WA, 380 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 17, 2021

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Atul Kumar Ben and another Vs. Union of India and others

MP, 3494 of 2020, Judgment Date: Aug 13, 2021

Law Laid Down:- Any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, in the facts of the case, must be neutralized, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by the delayed action of the Court. No litigant can derive any benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a Court of Law, as the interim order always merges into the final order to be passed in Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Sabit Khan Vs. State of M.P. and others

WRIT PETITION, 7818 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 12, 2021

Law laid down -  1. Section 19 of the PC Act requires previous sanction for prosecution. Sub section (3) thereof puts a rider that absence of or any error, irregularities etc. in sanction will not be a ground to reverse a finding or sentence unless in the opinion of the Court failure of justice has infact occasioned thereby. Sub section (4) thereof relates to raising an objection in this regard at an early stage in the proceedings. 2. The Act of granting Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Sapphire Institute of Nursingh and Science Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

WRIT PETITION, 12502 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 12, 2021

Law laid down - Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Vishwavidyalay (Eligibility and Enrolment of Students for Under Graduate Courses) Ordinance, 2014 - Clause-9 of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Vishwavidyalay (Eligibility and Enrolment of Students for Under Graduate Courses) Ordinance, 2014 is independent to other clauses of the Ordinance. Clause – 5 to 8 of the said Ordinance deals with admission of students and relating to supply of certified list of such admitted students whereas Clause-9 independently deals with “enrolment”. Thus, contention of petitioner Full Judgment

Tags Education
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Naresh vs. State of MP

Criminal Appeal, 215 of 2010, Judgment Date: Aug 12, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Durgesh Singh Bhadauria vs. State of MP

Criminal Appeal, 427 of 2007, Judgment Date: Aug 12, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Pankaj Karoriya Vs. The State of M.P. and others

MCRC, 40229 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 12, 2021

Full Judgment