Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalicharan Vaidh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - (1) When Section 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, can be invoked by the Collector. (2) Whether a stranger having no locus can move application under Section 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, for removing the existing office bearer. Full Judgment
Shehzad s/o Abdul Karim v/s Sohrab s/o Gulji and others
Suprabhat Chouksey & others Vs. Union of India and Another
Law laid down - On striking off the name of the defaulting company on the ground of not filing the financial statement or annual returns for the statutory period as contemplated under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, the directors of the defaulting company become ineligible for being reappointed as Director of that company or appointed as Director in other companies for 5 years and on incurring the said disqualification the office of the Director becomes vacant under Section 167 Full Judgment
Prashant Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P.
Dr. Shraddha Saxena Versus State of M.P. & others
Mahesh Pahade Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Though it is the responsibility of the State to bring the accused to law but in such process the actual sufferer of crime cannot be permitted to stay outside the law and to watch the proceedings from hindsight. It will be travesty of justice if the victims of such heinous crime are denied right to address their grievances before the courts of law. - Relied upon - Declaration of "Basic Principles of Justice of Victim for Crime and Abuse of Full Judgment
Lokendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of MP
Naresh Sahu & Anr. Vs. State of M.P
Jagdish Valecha vs. State of MP & Others
Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus Shri Carnet Elias Fernandes Vemalayam and others
The provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) override all other provisions of the law which are inconsistent therewith, therefore, will prevail over the provisions of all other Statutes and so as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the extent of inconsistencies. Thus, the proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 14 of the Act cannot be said to be illegal on account of a Receiver Full Judgment