Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pushpendra Vs. Anjani Kumar Pandey
Smt. Sunita Bai Chaudhary vs. Omkar Singh & others
Law laid down - Principle of Interpretation of Statute- Each word, phrase or sentence is to be construed in the light of general purpose of the Act. If meaning of statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect to irrespective of consequence. Section 21 (3) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993- The first no confidence motion was initiated before completion of two and half years from the date Sarpanch entered her office. This motion was not tenable Full Judgment
Bhawani Singh & others Versus M.P. Power Transmission Co. Ltd. & Others
Ramnath Pav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - It is essential for Courts to consider the mental status of accused and find out whether at the time of incident he knew what he was doing or it was wrong and contrary to law. Full Judgment
State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Shri Birani Sons, Indore
Rajesh Kushwah Vs. State of M.P.
Shri Rajendra Kumar Shrivas and another versus State of M.P. and others
Manoj Kumar Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
District Cooperative Central Bank Employees and Officers Federation, Chhindwara Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Babu Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sawailal Jalon Vs. State of MP & Another.
Law laid down - Merely continuation of a departmental enquiry instituted against delinquent Government employee, who was in service, will not automatically terminate on completion of two years' period from the date of superannuation. In fact, if the departmental enquiry is not completed within two years of date of superannuation, then such an employee will become entitled for release of cent percent pensionery dues, but they will be subject to final outcome of the departmental enquiry and the intent of the Full Judgment
Rohani Prasad Kushwaha and others Vs.High Court of M.P.
Ramkumar Sahu Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
ACC Limited Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Sanjay Malveeya & others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
SHUBH LAXMI GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT, INDORE THROUGH : PRESIDENT GOPALDAS Vs. SURESH @ GOPAL S/O AMBARAM AND FIVE OTHERS
Manish Makhija Vs. Central Bank of India and others
Law laid down - Section 14(1) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002- satisfaction of Magistrate- not specifically required to be recorded. The satisfaction is regarding adjudicating that nine points of declaration are covered in the affidavit. It does not call for any modicum of enquiry into the veracity or justification or the decision of declaration or any aspect thereof. Even if the word “satisfaction” is not recorded by the Magistrate but his Full Judgment