Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Saraswati Manjhi Vs. Smt. Manju Kol
Aatamdas Vs. State of M.P
Nitesh Rathore & Another v. State of M.P. & others
Prashant Kumar Nimgani vs. State of MP & Anr.
Manoj Shrivastava vs. State of MP & Anr.
SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI & ANR. Vs HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
Law Laid Down: The Court cannot be indulgent to the petitioners as there may be many other candidates whose applications might have been received after the cut-off date as against more than 1200 applications received within time. Thus, the application forms of the petitioners cannot be directed to be accepted on account of postal delay. The petitioners can seek their remedy against the postal department for delay but the High Court cannot be directed to accept the application forms received after Full Judgment
Madhav vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - Deposition of Investigating Officer-A public servant must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded. Plea of Private Defence- Even if an accused does not plead self defence, it is open to the court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record. Common intention under Section 34 of IPC- "Common Intention" implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the Full Judgment
RajKumar Raghuvanshi {Lakhera} Vs. Smt. Radha Lakhera & Anr.
Manish Surekha & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - Defence of the accused cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge. It can be considered at an appropriate stage/defence evidence. Full Judgment
Kishorilal Dubey Vs. Premchand Shrivastava (deceased) through L.Rs. Smt.Shail Shrivastava & Others
Law laid down - "Whether the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act can be given to the respondents when the earlier suit was decided by the Court who is competent to decide the same" Held - No. “Whether when the earlier suit was decided on merits, the subsequent suit for the same relief is maintainable.” Held- No. Full Judgment
Dr. Vandana Rajoriya Versus Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar and others
Law Laid Down: The UGC Regulations 2009 have not envisaged any situation for the candidates who were registered for Ph.D. Degree Programme prior to 11.07.2009. Such situation was addressed effectively only when a Notification was published on 11.07.2016 called as the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (4th Amendment), Regulations, 2016. Such Regulations 2016 are not creating any new right Full Judgment
Northern Coal Fields Limited & others vs M/s Sainik Mining Allied Services Limited
Hemlal Kol and Others Vs. The State of M.P. and Others
Deepak alias Preetam Verma and Anr. Vs. State of MP & Anr.
M/s Popular Plastic & others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down: The State Act i.e. the Madhya Pradesh Jaiv Anaashya Apashishta (Niyantran) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2017 dealing with the elimination of plastic waste which has a larger public interest involved is not irreconcilable with the Central Rules i.e. Plastic Wastes Management Rules, 2016, which deals with minimization of plastic waste, as the State Act goes a step further than the Central Law. Therefore, within the State, both the Central Law and the State Law can be read harmoniously. The State was Full Judgment