Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Bus Operator Association Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - 1. Administrative Order – source of power / enabling provision is not shown/reflected in the order – the enabling provision can be brought to the notice of the Court by filing reply. If such reply is filed, that does not mean that a new reason is assigned by filing reply. Non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of enabling provision will not make the order vulnerable if otherwise power of authority can be traced from the relevant statute. 2. Disaster Management Full Judgment
Sachin Pathak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - Granting reservation to a woman is a special provision of reservation and would be implemented in the manner in which a horizontal reservation is implemented. The concept of migration from one category to another on the basis of merit may hold good in vertical reservation, but in horizontal reservation the same is not applicable. Full Judgment
ANKIT PATEL Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Law laid down:- Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order passed by the writ court dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking benefit of discount/exemption to the extent of 90% on the motor vehicle tax penalty in terms of Notification dated 02.08.2019 issued by the Transport Department, Govt. of M.P. under Section 21(1) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1991 – Held Full Judgment
Munnalal and Jagdish Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - (1) Prosecutrix in a rape case – conviction can be based only on the basis of solitary evidence of prosecutrix but such witness should be of “sterling quality”. Citation relied upon - Krishna Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 130] & Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21]. (2) While deciding rape case, the Court must also evaluate the impact of such insinuation on a person Full Judgment
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors
Law laid down:- 1. The power of confiscation is not available to be exercised by the Collector in cases of illegal transportation of sand registered under the 2019 Sand Rules. 2. The power of confiscation in cases of illegal transportation of sand registered under 2019 Sand Rules, cannot be borrowed from the repealed 1996 Rules, 2006 Rules or 2018 Sand Rules. 3. The expression “Transgress” found in repealing Clause in Rule 27 of 2019 Sand Rules, defined and interpreted to mean that to Full Judgment
Abhishek Chouhan s/o Kailash Chouhan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - 1. It is held that, in majority of the cases of rape, the defence of the accused is that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and in most of the cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt also, but in the considered opinion of this Court, barring some exceptions, India are a conservative society, it has not yet reached such level (advance or lower) of civilization where unmarried girls, regardless of their religion, indulge in carnal Full Judgment
Radheshyam vs. Kamla Devi & Others
Law laid down - (1) Under Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act birth during marriage, is conclusive proof of legitimacy, therefore bars DNA testing but when blood relation of siblings is being challenged, there shall be no bar under Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act. Full Judgment
Raghuram @ Raghoram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - (1) Dying Declaration recorded by Doctor – The wife of appellant was burnt 100% and she was conscious and oriented but her condition was grim. It was natural for Doctor to undertake the task of recording dying declaration himself in view of precarious condition..... Para 26 Citation relied upon – Abdul Majid Abdul Rehman, AIR 1976 SC 1782. (2) Appellant's subsequent conduct relevant under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Para 30. Full Judgment
Smt. Brijesh Shrivastava Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others
Arun Singh Chouhan Vs. State of MP & Ors.
Law laid down - Article 226 of the Constitution – Writ of Quo Warranto - Can be issued to test the validity of appointment to a public office. The said writ cannot be issued to examine the posting or working of an officer to particular place. Writ of Quo Warranto – Necessary party - The person against whom writ is prayed for is a necessary party. Public Interest Litigation – Conduct of petitioner - A practising Advocate has chosen not to answer the Full Judgment
Rajeev Kumar Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - If the detenu is in custody at the time of passing the detention order then it is necessary for the Detaining Authority to mention this fact in the detention order and also consider the prospects of release of the detenu on bail and apprehension that the detenu would indulge in prejudicial activities in case of his release on bail. The non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority or nonrecording of satisfaction in this regard vitiates the detention Full Judgment
Smt. Neha Jain and others Vs. State of M.P. and another
Indu @ Indrapal Singh and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Gopal Krishna Gautam alias Pandit Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Law laid down:- 1. Sections 35, 54 and 66 under NDPS Act raise presumptions (which are rebuttable) over accused to prove his innocence, although the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is Preponderance of Probability which accused shall have to establish. NDPS Act carries reverse burden of proof under Sections 35 and 54. Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 relied. 2. An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and when it stands satisfied, Full Judgment
Batsiya and ors. Vs. Ramgovind and ors.
Law Laid Down:- 1. Once examination-in-chief is affirmed by way of filing it before the trial Court, thereafter, it is not possible to withdraw the said affidavit. Deponent may file an affidavit subsequent to it and to add or supplement the facts for the reason that order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC does not limit itself to a single affidavit but nonetheless deponent ought not be allowed to keep on filing fresh affidavits to keep improving his case in routine manner. 2. Full Judgment