Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuveer Singh and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - (1) Where witnesses make inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, testimony of such witnesses become unreliable and unworthy of credence and in absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. (2) Material improvements of version of eye-witness from FIR to the version given in the Court, said evidence cannot be taken into consideration. (3) Failure on part of investigating agency to recover any bloodstained Full Judgment
M/s Goel Roadways Vs. State of M.P. & Another
Law Laid Down - The argument of the petitioner that the respondent could pick and choose a particular property to assess the net worth of the tenderer is not acceptable as the respondents cannot resort to such method to assess the net worth of the tenderer. The decision taken by the Technical Evaluation and Tender Approval Committee, which is a committee of experts cannot be interfered with while exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court, as this Court while exercising power of judicial Full Judgment
Naushad Ali Versus Mubarak Ali @ Bhura
Law laid down - Revision against the order passed in an election petition under the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, Security deposit alongwith memo of Revision Petition under Rule 19(2) of Rules 1962 is mandatory. Security amount has to be deposited alongwith the revision petition. High Court has no discretion to condone the latches. Full Judgment
R.L. Jatav Vs. Station House Officer
Law Laid Down - A trial court while rendering a judgment in trial is empowered to direct the police to register an offence against one of the witnesses against whom the trial court while marshalling the evidence finds prima facie material of committing cognizable offence. By doing so, the trial court would not be overstepping its jurisdictional purview as the provision of Section 154 Cr.P.C. obliges the police to register an FIR on receipt of information of commission of cognizable offence from Full Judgment
Vinod Jain and Others vs. State of MP
Smt. Baljeet Kaur Vs. Harjeet Singh
Law laid down - 1- Mandatory period as prescribed in Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to 'the Act, 1955) is discretionary in nature and Court can consider if there is no possibility of the parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. 2- The Court can view the medium of video conferencing for seeking divorce under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 and can also permit genuine representation of the parties through close relations such as Full Judgment
Girraj Sharma Vs. State of MP
Dr. Sandeep Nahta vs. Smt. Deepa alias Jaya Nahta
Bhagwanti Bai Vs. State of MP & Others
Law Laid down - The Madhya Pradesh Bhumigat Pipe Line, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi Ki Upyokta Ke Adhikaron Ka Arjan) Adhiniyam, 2012” [for short the ‘State Act’] is an Act enacted in pursuance of Entry 5, 6 and 17 of List II, of the 7th Schedule, and not in terms of Entry 43 of List III of the 7th Schedule. Therefore, the State Act is not repugnant to the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Full Judgment
Balwan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - "Whether the power of recounting can be delegated- Held- No. "Whether the application for recounting should contain specific reasons for recounting as per Rule 80 of the Election Rules- Held- Yes. Full Judgment
A.K. Hade Vs. Shailendra Singh Yadav and another
Visnushankar (since dead) and others Vs. Girdharilal and others
MOHANLAL GARG AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER
Shri Gouri Ganesh Shri Balaji Constructions “C” Class Contractor Vs. Executive Engineer, PWD
Law Laid Down - The expression “ascertained amount” appearing in Section 2(1)(d) of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short “the State Act”) includes the amount of consequential relief. Mere declaration of termination of contract is not the substantial relief and in the guise of mere declaration an aggrieved person cannot be permitted to omit the consequential relief which the party may be entitled to claim in a reference under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. It is held that reading of Full Judgment
Rashmi Thakur Vs. High Court of M.P. & others
Law Laid Down - The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has made a departure from the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 as the reservation for the physically disabled candidates is not dependent on any condition. The reservation can be denied only if any Government establishment is exempted from the provisions of the Act by the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner. In absence of any decision to exempt Full Judgment