Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
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
Ramanda @ Yashvant Gond -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh
Shankar Gadariya -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh
Nitin Pathak - V/s - State of M.P. & Others
(1) In exercise of power of Judicial Review, the Court should not refer the matter to court appointed expert as the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituted to finalize answer key. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. (2) Secondly this Court does not and should not act as Court of Appeal in the matter of Full Judgment
Girish Kumar Shrivastav Vs. Jagdish Prasad Kewat & Anr
Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred under Section 257 of MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 in respect of suit for declaration of title and consequential relief. Full Judgment
Smt. Laxmi Thakur and Anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Rabiya Bano Vs. Rashid Khan & Anr.
Law laid down - The appellate court may only interfere in an appeal against the acquittal where there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so. Full Judgment
Chakresh Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others
JAIN SARVODAYA VIDHYA GYANPITH SAMITI AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Pankaj Singh @ Sonu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Krishan Mohan Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.
Law Laid Down - Framing of charge precisely mentioning the offence which in specific terms prescribes punishment for the same and not any other generic or approximate offence which may in generic terms prescribe punishment for the offence alleged. Charge framed u/S 409 IPC does not relate to breach of trust by a warehouse keeper, which offence is exclusively punishable u/s 407 IPC. Thus, charge for breach of trust by warehouse keeper framed u/S 409 IPC is not sustainable. The trial Court directed to Full Judgment