Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Vanshkar Vs. State of M.P. and Another
Law laid down - (I) Considering the amendment vide Section 439(1-A) of Cr.P.C. on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it appears that personal liberty of an individual cannot lie at the mercy of presence of an “Informant”. (II) Code of Criminal Procedure is a procedural law and by the amendment incorporated under Section 439(1-A) of Cr.P.C. impliedly penalises the applicant/ accused while withholding his bail application for an indefinite period which is not permissible in law. (III) Full Judgment
Anek Singh Tomar vs. Dhaniram S/o Shri Bhagchand (dead) through LRs.
Skol Breweries Ltd. Vs. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd.
Law laid down - The High Court while deciding the appeal against rejection of temporary injunction and forming an opinion regarding prima facie case can examine the subsequent development took place during the pendency of appeal. Full Judgment
Ramswaroop vs. Matadin Shivhare (dead) through Lrs & Others
Bhikam Singh and Others vs. Ranveer Singh & Others
Employees Provident Fund Vs. M/s. Saraswati Ucchattar Madhyamik Vidhyala
Law Laid Down - The employees who avail the provident fund scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 fall within the definition of "Consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as held by the Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Bhavani AIR 2008 SC 2957. Full Judgment
M/s Fives Stein India Project Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Versus State of M.P. and others
Law laid down - 1. The expression “shall” is not conclusive to determine the provision as directory or mandatory. The Court is required to ascertain the real intention of the Legislature which will include the examination, nature and design of the statute and the consequences. 2. In all cases, failure to perform a duty within the time limit, does not render the action a nullity. Where a provision lays down a period within which the public body should perform any function, the provision Full Judgment
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Shahid & Another
Law Laid Down - Evidence as to the cause of death is relevant not only in relation to the cause of death of the person making the statement but also to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death. In the suicide note when the prosecutrix has tried to convey that the accused were hungry (for sex) and that she became their food (victim), it clearly indicates that she was violated and that she did not want to live life of Full Judgment
Aarya Maansingh Vs. State of M.P. & Others
M/s S.V.E.C. Construction Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down - The question whether time is essence of contract or not, depends upon the intention of the parties. Here, the petitioner sought modification of work order so as to complete it within the time granted and then himself chose todetermine the contract. Thus, he understood that the time was essence of the contract. Such conduct of the petitioner as well as on behalf of the respondents shows that the parties intended to complete the contract within time frame. Full Judgment
Goutam Singh Karoliya and another Vs. State of M.P. and another
Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Touheed Musalman Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - It is not appropriate to award ‘death sentence’ in every case. To award death sentence, some factors are necessary to be considered, such as the age of culprit, manner of commission of offence and possibilities of reformation of accused, etc. Full Judgment
State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdeo Singh
Law Laid Down - Non-payment of some retiral dues on account of pendency of the revision against an order of acquittal of the writ-petitioner cannot be said to be a contumacious act on behalf of the State to deprive the writ-petitioner of his retiral dues. It was an action possible in law. However, since there is some delay, interest @6% per annum is ordered to be paid on the retiral dues to settle the equities between the parties. - Supreme Court Full Judgment
State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Ramlal Mahobia
Law Laid Down - The question of award of interest by the writ court is not controlled or regulated by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is the Interest Act, 1978, which empowers the Court to allow interest but at the rate not exceeding the current rate of interest in terms of Section 2(b) of the said Act. After discharging duties as an employee, it is the right of the employee to get salary; therefore, if the salary Full Judgment