Filter by Date
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Kamal Khare Vs. The State of M.P. and others

WRIT PETITION, 22290 of 2019, Judgment Date: Apr 22, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Arun Parmar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

WRIT PETITION, 1539 of 2018, Judgment Date: Apr 22, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Bhopal Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Bhopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

WRIT PETITION, 4021 of 2019, Judgment Date: Apr 22, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU) Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 19/04/2021

WRIT PETITION, 8914 of 2020, Judgment Date: Apr 19, 2021

Full Judgment

Tags SUO MOTU
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Kalla alias Surendra Jat Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others

WRIT PETITION, 4499 of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 09, 2021

Law laid down:-   1. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. An act, affecting public order may have ramifications over law and order and security of the State at the same time. 2. Liberty of an individual is to be reconciled with collective interest of the community so that Public Order, Social Peace and overall Development of the Area may not be sacrificed at the altar of Lawlessness, Misgovernance and Private Retribution. 3. Crime and Disorder are strongly interrelated, therefore, Broken Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Satyanarayan Sharma & Anr. vs. State of M.P.

CRR, 945 of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 08, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

M/s Om Trading Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and others

WA, 1823 of 2019, Judgment Date: Apr 07, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Kundan Mukati S/o. Badrilal Mukati. V/s. State of M.P. & others

WRIT PETITION, 11362 of 2019, Judgment Date: Apr 07, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Sonu Jain, Jiwan and Santosh vs. State of M.P.

Criminal Appeal, 474,616 and 644 Judgment Date: Apr 06, 2021

Law laid down -  Section 302/304 Part-II Indian Penal Code - Single blow- As a Rule of Thumb, it cannot be said that in no case of single blow or injury, accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. In cases of single injury, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the accused should be appropriately convicted under Section 302 or under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Section 302 Full Judgment

Tags Murder
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

D.K. Mishra vs. Hon'ble High Court of M.P. and another

WRIT PETITION, 19818 of 2020, Judgment Date: Apr 01, 2021

Law laid down - (i) Under Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, a Government servant who had elected for voluntary retirement can withdraw his election subsequently with the specific approval of the authority and no absolute right exists in favour of such Government servant but the discretion given to the authority under Rule 42(2) is to be exercised “ön consideration of the circumstances of the case” and on the objective application of mind. Hence, the authority can Full Judgment

Tags Pension
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Madan Mohan Shrivastava vs. Additional District Magistrate (South) Bhopal and others

WRIT PETITION, 5629 of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 01, 2021

Law laid down - (i) Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act permits the secured creditor to take recourse to the measures prescribed therein to recover the secured debt. One such measure is to take possession of the secured asset. Section 14 of the Act gives remedy to the secured creditor to obtain possession of the secured asset by approaching the District Magistrate. Hence, the action of the District Magistrate under Section 14 is in furtherance of the provision contained under Section Full Judgment

Tags Debt
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Rachna Mahawar vs. The District Magistrate and others

WRIT PETITION, 5877 of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 01, 2021

Law laid down - The power under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act can be exercised by the Additional District Magistrate also. The nature of power exercisable under Section 14 of the Act is to facilitate taking over of possession of secured assets and not to decide any contentious issue. Section 37 of the Act specifically provides that application of any other law for the time being in force is not barred. Section 20 of the Cr.P.C. reflects that the Additional Full Judgment

Tags Debt
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Pratha Rajak vs. Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya & others

WRIT PETITION, 3479 of 2021, Judgment Date: Apr 01, 2021

Law laid down - If a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears in the selection process then being unsuccessful, he cannot challenge the process. After participating in selection process without any objection and when the process is over, a candidate is estopped from challenging the brochure condition and condition of admission relating to sports quota. Full Judgment

Tags Education
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Vishnu & Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

WA, 1150,1164,1171,1174,1175,1201 of 2020, Judgment Date: Mar 26, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Om Prakash Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and another

MCRC, 44485 of 2020, Judgment Date: Mar 25, 2021

Law laid down:- (1) The guidelines laid down for the Magistrates for adjudication of application u/S.156(3) Cr.P.C. complaining about delayed/improper investigation filed along with complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C. (2) The complaint u/S.200 Cr.P.C. filed along with 156(3) application need not be kept pending owing to bar contained in Sec.210 Cr.P.C. for more than 60/90 days or any other longer period statutorily provided on expiry of which the police fails to file the final report u/S.173(1) Cr.P.C. (3) On failure of police to file final Full Judgment

Tags Cognizance
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Kan Singh, Ratan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Ors.

WRIT PETITION, 16904,483 & 10833 of 2020, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

Sinnam Singh vs. State of MP and Ors.

WRIT PETITION, 21814 of 2018, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2021

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Himanshu Kuril S/o Vasudev vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Criminal Appeal, 241 of 2012, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2021

Law laid down -  Appellant convicted by trial Court under Section 302 of IPC. The question was whether there was intention to cause death ?  Appellant had dealt knife injuries on the thigh of the deceased resulting in his death and before inflicting knife injuries, had told the deceased that “ आज मैं तेरा हिसाब कर देता हूँ  ” (“today I will settled the score with you”). After the incidence, he called (PW/2) on Mobile saying that “आज मैंने नीरज को निपटा Full Judgment

Tags Murder
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Health Care Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MP Public Health Services Corp. Ltd., & Anr

WRIT PETITION, 2281 of 2021, Judgment Date: Mar 16, 2021

Law laid down -  Blacklisting and debarment-it has drastic impact on the contractor - Thus, such a drastic action can be taken by following “due process”. Issuance of a notice by which contractor can gather the nature of allegations and intended action to be taken is must. The order of blacklisting/debarment cannot be passed unless such an action is proposed in the show cause notice or it can be clearly inferred by reading of notice that such an action was proposed. The Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & another Vs. Kailash Chandra

WA, 240 and 247 of 2018, Judgment Date: Mar 16, 2021

Law laid down -  Alternative Remedy-Article 226 of the Constitution and Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - The respondent employees were “workmen” and appellant Corporation is an 'industry' within the meaning of ID Act, 1947. The employer contended that writ petition could not have been entertained and respondents should have been relegated to avail the remedy under the ID Act. The contention is not accepted because (i) the punishment orders under question before the learned Single Judge were based on admitted documents of Full Judgment