Judgments
Shivcharan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law Laid down:- Abetment of an offence, falls under the category of “Inchoate Offences” – Characteristics of an Inchoate Offence – When can an accused be held guilty of having abetted an offence – assessing the guilt of an accused in abetment of suicide by wife from domestic violence/matrimonial cruelty. Full Judgment
MANISH KUMAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Versus PANDARINATHAN GOVINDARAJULU & ANR.
RAMA NARANG VERSUS RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
LAKHVIR SINGH ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
VENIGALLA KOTESWARAMMA VERSUS MALAMPATI SURYAMBA & ORS.
BAJRANGA (Dead) by LRs. Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS
Dharmendra Jatav Vs. State of M.P., and others
Law laid down:- (1) The offending sale was made vide registered sale deed dated 01/03/1994. The lease was originally granted to Kishanlal in the year 1966-67 after coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') and after his death, the name of his heir Narayan Jatav was entered by way of succession vide entry No.40/93-94 on 30/12/1993. Bhumiswami right was recorded on 10/01/1994 in favour of Narayan Jatav the father of the present petitioner. Full Judgment
RAVI RAKESH & ORS VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
SH. N.K. MADHOK VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
State of M.P. & another Vs. Vishnu Prasad Maran & another
Law laid down - [1] Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 - The Writ Court has taken a plausible view. No interference is warranted. Even if another view is possible, it cannot be a ground for interference. [2] The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 – Rule 10 – The punishment of “Censure”. The punishment enlisted in Rule 10 can be imposed on “existing government servants”. The said punishment cannot Full Judgment
Sanjana Soviya Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down:- The petition filed by someone who claims to be adoptive mother seeking custody of the child from the respondent No.4, who is none other than the natural mother of the child and is disputing the genuineness of adoption deed. Held - writ of habeas corpus in a case involving such disputed questions of fact cannot be issued against natural mother. However, petitioner may avail her remedy before any other appropriate Court. Full Judgment