Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
RajKumar Raghuvanshi {Lakhera} Vs. Smt. Radha Lakhera & Anr.
Manish Surekha & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - Defence of the accused cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge. It can be considered at an appropriate stage/defence evidence. Full Judgment
Kishorilal Dubey Vs. Premchand Shrivastava (deceased) through L.Rs. Smt.Shail Shrivastava & Others
Law laid down - "Whether the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act can be given to the respondents when the earlier suit was decided by the Court who is competent to decide the same" Held - No. “Whether when the earlier suit was decided on merits, the subsequent suit for the same relief is maintainable.” Held- No. Full Judgment
Dr. Vandana Rajoriya Versus Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar and others
Law Laid Down: The UGC Regulations 2009 have not envisaged any situation for the candidates who were registered for Ph.D. Degree Programme prior to 11.07.2009. Such situation was addressed effectively only when a Notification was published on 11.07.2016 called as the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (4th Amendment), Regulations, 2016. Such Regulations 2016 are not creating any new right Full Judgment
Northern Coal Fields Limited & others vs M/s Sainik Mining Allied Services Limited
Hemlal Kol and Others Vs. The State of M.P. and Others
Deepak alias Preetam Verma and Anr. Vs. State of MP & Anr.
M/s Popular Plastic & others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down: The State Act i.e. the Madhya Pradesh Jaiv Anaashya Apashishta (Niyantran) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2017 dealing with the elimination of plastic waste which has a larger public interest involved is not irreconcilable with the Central Rules i.e. Plastic Wastes Management Rules, 2016, which deals with minimization of plastic waste, as the State Act goes a step further than the Central Law. Therefore, within the State, both the Central Law and the State Law can be read harmoniously. The State was Full Judgment
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sangita & Anr
Mishrilal through Legal Heirs v/s Samarthmal & Others
SANDEEP WASKALE Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANOTHER
Premnarayan Yadav Vs. State of MP & another
Manoj Kumar Vs. State of MP & others
Law laid down - The peon and salesman etc. appointed in country/foreign liquor shops run by the excise department and were terminated 4-5 years thereafter on account of the subsequent change in policy to auction such shops, are not entitled to regularization/absorption in government service as they do not fulfill the requisite conditions contained in the scheme dated 16/5/2007 framed by the State government on the basis of the judgment of the supreme court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Full Judgment
Jehangir D. Mehta Vs. The Real Nayak Sakh Sahkari Maryadit and Another
Law laid down - The order or decision of the arbitration council under Section 57 of the Madhya Pradesh Swayatta Sahakarita Adhiniyam, 1999 is an arbitration award and it is not a decree passed by the civil court as defined under Section 2(2) of the CPC, hence the stamp duty as required by the Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 is payable for its execution. Full Judgment
Gajanand S/o Chamru Lal @ Bhuria Lohar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - An act of attempt to commit an offence is totally different from an act of preparation to commit an offence. There is no evidence that after laying down on the prosecutrix, the appellant in order to commit rape put his penis on the vagina of the prosecutrix or made any further attempt to penetrate in the vagina of the prosecutrix or touch any sensual organ with hand. Hence, the act which has been proved shows only preparation. Moreso, Full Judgment
Smt. Ayasha Rathore Vs. State of M.P. and others
Rohit Jain Vs. M.P.P.S.C. & Another
Law laid down - 1. Doctrine of Estoppel cannot be used as a shelter when the constitutional body itself commits a mistake or illegality in evaluating the answer sheet of the candidate. More so, when it is obliged to evaluate the answer sheet with accuracy and precision. 2. In absence of any provision under the statute/regulations, the Court should not ‘generally’ direct revaluation. In a case where error is glaring, apparent and admitted, direction for rechecking, re-evaluation can be granted. Full Judgment