Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surya Prakash Vs. Smt. Rachna
Law Laid Down - If there is any instance of domestic violence, for which an affirmative or prohibitory order is passed under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the provisions of Section 31 of the Act can be invoked. Non-payment of maintenance allowance is also a breach of 'protection order' or 'interim protection order'. The order passed in Sunil @ Sonu vs. Sarita Chawla (Smt.), reported in 2009 (5) MPHT 319 is in accordance with Full Judgment
Smt. Shanti Bavaria Vs. State of M.P. & Others
Law Laid down - It is not necessary to obtain personal sanction of His Excellency, Governor of Madhya Pradesh for taking decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and if the council of Ministers have taken such decision, it will serve the purpose and meet the requirement of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. Reliance is placed upon State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak, AIR 1996 SC 765 & Samsher Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 Full Judgment
Leela Bai Vs. Manorama Bai
Law laid down - The first appellate court while reversing the finding of the trial Court must record its finding in clear terms and explain how the reasonings of the trial Court are erroneous. Full Judgment
Smt. Saroj Rajak & another Vs. State of M.P.
Democratic Lawyers Forum Vs. Union of India & Others
Law Laid down - (1) Public Interest Litigation in service matters like selection, appointment, promotion, seniority and also disciplinary proceedings is not maintainable. Reliance is placed upon Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Choudhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305; Rajnit Prasad Vs. Union of India, (2000) 9 SCC 313; and, Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo and others, (2014) 1 SCC 161. (2) A citizen has a fundamental right to meet a person of his choice. Reliance is placed upon Writ Petition Full Judgment
Rajesh Kumar Miglani & Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being the Central Legislation does not contemplate grant of fitness certificate and it is left to be framed by the State Government, therefore, the issue of fitness certificate and payment of tax falls within the legislative competence of the State in terms of Section 65(2)(d) of the Act of 1988 and under Section 3 of the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991. Thus, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 48 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, Full Judgment
Rakesh Singh Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Harish Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - "Whether the advice of the Public Service Commission is required to be supplied to the delinquent before imposing any penalty- Held- Yes. "Whether the Enquiry Officer should record the reasons of each article of charges by discussing the evidence- Held-Yes. Full Judgment
Natthu Versus State of M.P.
Law laid down - Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. Full Judgment
Mohanlal Yadav Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Laxman Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Iqbal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence including 'last seen together' theory. Full Judgment
Sukhchain and others. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey and others
If tractor insured for agricultural purpose was being used for other purpose, this is breach of terms and condition of Insurance Policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Full Judgment
Shri Sandeep Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
T.R. Taunk Vs. State of M. P. & another
Lakshminarayan vs. Smt. Sudamabai & Ors.
Dr. (Smt.) Asha Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others
Law Laid Down - (i) The interpretation of the phrase “Government Teacher” as provided under the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshkiya Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967. Also distinguished the case of Padam Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others, in W.P. No.13763/2013(s) decided on 30.01.2014, as also Dr. Kanti Lal Sahu and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, in W.P. No.5237/2012 decided on 17.01.2013. Full Judgment
Chhindwara Plus Developers Limited - V/s - Union of India & Others
The provisions of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 will not have overriding effect over the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003 or for that matter the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 as none of the provisions of the SEZ Act deal with the erection of transmission lines which is part of the Electricity Act read with Telegraph Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions Full Judgment