Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
MADHURI KRISHNASWAMI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Vishal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC is irrational. Marriageable age in India is 18 years, giving consent for sexual intercourse is also 18 years. Exception is inconsistent with the provisions of POCSO Act. Definition of “Child” as per Section 2(1)(d) is below 18 years. The preamble also provides that “sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children are heinous crimes and need to be effectively addressed” This is directly in conflict with Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC. Section Full Judgment
In Reference (Suo Motu) vs. Union of India and others
In Reference (Suo Motu) versus Union Of India
Nitin Khandelwal Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Pramod Yadav Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Kamal Khare Vs. The State of M.P. and others
Arun Parmar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Bhopal Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Bhopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU) Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 19/04/2021
Kalla alias Surendra Jat Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down:- 1. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. An act, affecting public order may have ramifications over law and order and security of the State at the same time. 2. Liberty of an individual is to be reconciled with collective interest of the community so that Public Order, Social Peace and overall Development of the Area may not be sacrificed at the altar of Lawlessness, Misgovernance and Private Retribution. 3. Crime and Disorder are strongly interrelated, therefore, Broken Full Judgment
Satyanarayan Sharma & Anr. vs. State of M.P.
M/s Om Trading Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and others
Kundan Mukati S/o. Badrilal Mukati. V/s. State of M.P. & others
Sonu Jain, Jiwan and Santosh vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - Section 302/304 Part-II Indian Penal Code - Single blow- As a Rule of Thumb, it cannot be said that in no case of single blow or injury, accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. In cases of single injury, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the accused should be appropriately convicted under Section 302 or under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Section 302 Full Judgment
D.K. Mishra vs. Hon'ble High Court of M.P. and another
Law laid down - (i) Under Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, a Government servant who had elected for voluntary retirement can withdraw his election subsequently with the specific approval of the authority and no absolute right exists in favour of such Government servant but the discretion given to the authority under Rule 42(2) is to be exercised “ön consideration of the circumstances of the case” and on the objective application of mind. Hence, the authority can Full Judgment
Madan Mohan Shrivastava vs. Additional District Magistrate (South) Bhopal and others
Law laid down - (i) Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act permits the secured creditor to take recourse to the measures prescribed therein to recover the secured debt. One such measure is to take possession of the secured asset. Section 14 of the Act gives remedy to the secured creditor to obtain possession of the secured asset by approaching the District Magistrate. Hence, the action of the District Magistrate under Section 14 is in furtherance of the provision contained under Section Full Judgment
Rachna Mahawar vs. The District Magistrate and others
Law laid down - The power under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act can be exercised by the Additional District Magistrate also. The nature of power exercisable under Section 14 of the Act is to facilitate taking over of possession of secured assets and not to decide any contentious issue. Section 37 of the Act specifically provides that application of any other law for the time being in force is not barred. Section 20 of the Cr.P.C. reflects that the Additional Full Judgment
Pratha Rajak vs. Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya & others
Law laid down - If a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears in the selection process then being unsuccessful, he cannot challenge the process. After participating in selection process without any objection and when the process is over, a candidate is estopped from challenging the brochure condition and condition of admission relating to sports quota. Full Judgment