Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Wadhwa vs. Smt. Nidhi Wadhwa and Anr
The Nagpur Diocesan Trust Association and Another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Virendra Singh Bhandari Vs. M/s.Nandlal Bhandari & Sons P.Ltd (In.Liqn.)
Smt. Purnima Parekh Versus Ashok Kumar Shrivastava and others
Dr. Pushpendra Sharma Versus State of M.P & others
HAWKINS COOKERS LTD HAMIDIA ROAD BHOPAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Brigank Mohan Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & others
Aarsh Marg Seva Trust and Another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Dharamveer Sharma Vs. The State of M.P. and others
Purushottam Sahu Vs. Devkinandan Dubey & others
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr Vs. Uday Sisode and others
Santosh Kumar Sihare Vs. The State of M.P. and others
Vimlendra Singh alias Prince Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - 1. Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989– As per unamended provision, the prosecution was required to establish that the prosecutrix who was subjected to any offence under the IPC was subjected on the ground that she is a member of SC/ST community. In view of evidence on record, the prosecution could not establish that offence allegedly committed was on the ground that prosecutrix belonged to reserved community. Hence, Full Judgment
Ajay Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - 1. Evidence Act- ‘Related’ and “Interested” Witness” - ‘related’ is not equivalent into ‘interested’. A witness may be called ‘interested’ only when he derives some benefits from the result of the litigation or in seeing the accused person punished. Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that evidence of interested witness cannot be taken into consideration. The Court is obliged to examine such evidence with great care, caution and circumspection. 2. ‘Related’ and ‘interested’ witness – The Full Judgment
Smt. Suman Chouksey Vs Dinesh Kumar and others
Ms. Apoorva Pathak Vs. The Hon’ble High Court of M.P. and another
Law laid down - (1) Where an applicant is guilty of suppression or misrepresentation of facts or obtains appointment by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such selection or appointment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. (2) The suppression or misrepresentation of information in the attestation form by a candidate seeking appointment, per se amounts to moral turpitude. (3) Dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have defrauded or misrepresented themselves and in such Full Judgment