Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krsnaa Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Law laid down - Article 226 of the Constitution and Clause-17 of NIT - contractual matters – Notice inviting tender – Cancellation of NIT based on the relevant Clause permitting the Department to cancel the NIT without assigning reason is not beyond the scope of judicial review. Judicial review – In contractual matters also the Court can examine following factors:- (i) Whether decision making authority has exceeded its authority? (ii) Whether he committed any error of law? (iii) Whether rules of natural justice Full Judgment
Praveen Muraka S/o Shri Gokuldas Murarka vs. Bhama Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Law laid down - The Designs Act, 2000 – It seeks to provide and ensure effective protection to registered designs. It is also required to promote design activity in order to promote the “design element” in an article of production. Section 4 of Designs Act- A plaintiff can institute a suit impugning the other product if the said product is neither new nor significantly distinguishable. Section 4 of Designs Act – The test to examine whether the impugned product is 'new or original', Full Judgment
Ranjit alias Bhaiyu Mohite Vs. Smt. Nandita Singh & Ors.
Ram Karan Dwivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others
Law Laid Down :- Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution would not normally interfere where the enquiry was held by competent authority and where the rules of natural justice were followed or where the finding arrived at by the authority are based on evidence. The Court although cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer in a departmental enquiry, it does not mean that Full Judgment
GANESH AND ANOTHER VS. SMT. INDU BAI AND ANOTHER
Law laid down - Tribunal constituted under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, can order eviction of person who is in unauthorized occupation/forcefully occupied the property of parent or senior citizen, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure maintenance and freedom of senior citizen and parents. Full Judgment
Rupendra Joshi Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior
Kishan Patel & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law Laid Down:- A duly elected person is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected and he can be removed only on proven misconduct or any other procedure prescribed under the law. Even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass speaking and reasoned order. - Relied - Ravi Yashwant Bhori vs. The Collector, District Raigad & others, (2012) 4 SCC 407. Reasons are sacrosanct not Full Judgment
M/s Satyam Cineplexes Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and others
Law laid down - Article 226 of he ConstitutionAvailability of alternative remedy- The writ petition was filed and entertained in the year 2014. It remained pending for more than six years. Despite availability of alternative remedy, it is not proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the said remedy after six years. M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936- Section 2(f)- “Proprietor”- The definition is wide and includes the persons who are Incharge or responsible for the management of Cinema House. Full Judgment
Jabalpur Development Authority and another Versus Deepak Sharma and others
Law laid down - Even if the court or Tribunal direct for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance , it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. Full Judgment
Ratanlal Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - [1] Presumption under Section 114- A of Evidence Act is not available in case of gang rape provided under Section 376-D of IPC after the amendment incorporated in Section 376(2) of IPC and in Section 114-A of Evidence Act by the Act 13 of 2013 dated 03.02.2013 for offences committed after 03.02.2013. [2] Oversight of the legislature cannot be amended or corrected by the Courts. Full Judgment
M/s Vijay Energy Equipments Versus West Central Railway
Law Laid Down:- The applicant having failed to waive off the applicability of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, the respondent-Railways would be justified in invoking Clause 64(3) of the General Conditions of Contract, as amended by them after amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 w.e.f. 23.10.2015, thereby forwarding the panel of three retired officers of Railways and calling upon the applicant to choose two of them for appointing one out of them as nominee Full Judgment
Jagdish Singh Jatav vs. State of MP and Others
Ankesh Gurjar @ Ankit Gurjar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law Laid Down:- (1) The concept of arrest/apprehension in a police lockup/jail as contemplated by Chapter V of Cr.P.C. is not recognized in the Scheme of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. (2) The Juvenile as and when apprehended and detained is immediately sent to Observation Home/Fit facility/One-stop Home or any of the Institutions contemplated under 2015 Act either for the period of 24 hrs between arrest and production before the Board and also thereafter during pendency of Full Judgment
Khyaliram Vs. State of M.P. and others
Law laid down:- (1) There is no vested right to file a Second Appeal either under unamended Section 44(2)(b) or amended Sec.44(3)(b) M.P. Land Revenue Code. (2) Therefore, the remedy of Second Appeal which was otherwise available to the petitioner under the unamended MPLRC at the time of dismissal of his First Appeal, cannot be made available under the amended Sec.44(3)(b) M.P. Land Revenue Code not only because remedy of Second Appeal is not available after the amendment in the MPLRC Full Judgment
Shivcharan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law Laid down:- Abetment of an offence, falls under the category of “Inchoate Offences” – Characteristics of an Inchoate Offence – When can an accused be held guilty of having abetted an offence – assessing the guilt of an accused in abetment of suicide by wife from domestic violence/matrimonial cruelty. Full Judgment
Dharmendra Jatav Vs. State of M.P., and others
Law laid down:- (1) The offending sale was made vide registered sale deed dated 01/03/1994. The lease was originally granted to Kishanlal in the year 1966-67 after coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') and after his death, the name of his heir Narayan Jatav was entered by way of succession vide entry No.40/93-94 on 30/12/1993. Bhumiswami right was recorded on 10/01/1994 in favour of Narayan Jatav the father of the present petitioner. Full Judgment
State of M.P. & another Vs. Vishnu Prasad Maran & another
Law laid down - [1] Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 - The Writ Court has taken a plausible view. No interference is warranted. Even if another view is possible, it cannot be a ground for interference. [2] The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 – Rule 10 – The punishment of “Censure”. The punishment enlisted in Rule 10 can be imposed on “existing government servants”. The said punishment cannot Full Judgment
Sanjana Soviya Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down:- The petition filed by someone who claims to be adoptive mother seeking custody of the child from the respondent No.4, who is none other than the natural mother of the child and is disputing the genuineness of adoption deed. Held - writ of habeas corpus in a case involving such disputed questions of fact cannot be issued against natural mother. However, petitioner may avail her remedy before any other appropriate Court. Full Judgment
Ku. Madhu Morya vs. The State of MP and Others
Raja Bhaiya Singh Vs State of MP
Law laid down - 1. The order dated 23.3.2020 of Supreme Court related to extension of time limit, was not applicable for filing the challan within 60 days or 90 days as prescribed under CrPC. 2. Order upon the application filed for default bail under section 167(2) of CrPC is not an interlocutory order because it decided the valuable right of default bail finally at that stage. Therefore, revision is tenable against the aforesaid order. 3. (i) Period for filing the challan will Full Judgment