Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/s Narmada Ginning and Pressing Factory, Harda Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Veer Singh and four others Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Morari vs. State of MP
Arun Kumar Dey v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment
Law laid down - 1. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C – The Section is in two parts. In the first part, the word “may” is employed whereas second part uses “shall”. Thus, first part gives pure discretion to the criminal court whereas second part makes it mandatory to summon the witness. Second part of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C - The litmus test to exercise power under the second part aforesaid is whether it is essential to the just decision of a Full Judgment
Tarun Kumar Mishra Versus State of M.P. & Ors.
Law laid down - As per the provisions of Rule 14 of MP Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, the disciplinary authority has to apply its mind separately at two different stages, (i) initiation of proceeding and (ii) approval of charge-sheet. It is not enough that if the disciplinary authority has formed an opinion to initiate the disciplinary proceeding and signed it, but for issuance of charge-sheet it would not be required to sign it by the disciplinary authority. Full Judgment
Vir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Ramcharan & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.
State of M.P. Vs. Ramcharan & Ors.
In Reference The State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Pankaj Mishra
Law laid down:- 1. Bar and Bench share common platform for the cause of justice. All other professions are guided by the spirit of Service and Integrity but this profession beside this spirit, also Primes Compassion, Mercy and above all Empathy. Therefore, this profession (Bar and Bench) like medical profession has distinction to heal and role of both the professions is not confined to Serve only, like other professions but their role go much beyond. 2. Relationship of Bar of Bench discussed. Full Judgment
M/s Sai Rubber Works Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Pradeep Kumar Arya Vs. State of M.P. & others
Dhirendra Kumar Dubey Vs. The State of M.P. & Others
Seth Trilokchand Kalyanmal Digambar Jain & Another v/s Sushil Kumar Kasliwal & Another
Smt. Shashibala Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Vishal D. Remeteke Vs. State of MP & Ors.
Law laid down - Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 6 and Sec.35 – Section 6 deals with ‘functions’ of State Bar Council which includes certain functions relating to determining/entertaining case of misconduct of an Advocate. The procedure to impose punishment is laid down in Sec.35 of the Act. An Advocate can be punished only as per legislative mandate ingrained in Sec.35 of the Act. Sec.6 does not provide any procedure to punish an Advocate. Procedure is laid down in Sec.35 of Full Judgment