Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Monu @ Saurabh Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
Law Laid Down - The offence under the unamended provision of Sec. 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act – The victim is Project Officer – The insult and intimidation was directed against the Project Officer arising out of victim's resistence in allowing joining of sister-in- law of the accused- Insult and intimidation was directed against the Project Officer and not against the SC / ST status / capacity of the Project Officer- Thus offence u/s 3(1) (x) not made out even on Full Judgment
Laxman & Another Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - Whether Extra Judicial Confession given to interested witness can be relied on ingredients of last seen evidence and effect of delay in giving statements. Full Judgment
Karelal and others Vs. Gyanbai widow of Keshari Singh and others
Hemant Rawat Vs. Smt. Anubha Rawat
Law laid down - Husband has failed to establish any reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society of wife. He is under obligation to live with his wife in his home and under his roof. Full Judgment
Gyanprakash Vs. State of M.P. and others
Kishori Lal and Ors. Vs. Shivcharan and Ors.
Law Laid Down - Recalling of witness under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. for correction in the mention of survey number in the plaintiff deposition, is impermissible if deposition discloses that plaintiff had stuck to his stand when confronted about the wrong mention of survey number. Full Judgment
Kanchedilal Thakur Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - Whether corroboration of the statement of evidence of police person is necessary or not and whether the conviction can be based on the statement of witness/witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. when the witness denied the contents of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in their deposition recorded before the Court during Trial. Full Judgment
Madhur Vs. State of M.P.
Law laid down - (1) The word ‘suitable’ does not require a definition because any man of experience would know who is suitable. However, each case has to be viewed in the context in which the word ‘suitability’ or ‘suitable’ is used i.e. the object of the enactment & the purpose sought to be achieved. (2) ‘Eligibility’ is a matter of fact whereas ‘suitability’ is a matter of opinion. (3) M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961- when Competent Authority has Full Judgment
Ms. Reena Khedekar Vs. State of M. P. and Others
State of Madhya Pradesh and another Versus Sujit Khare and another
Dinesh Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr. Versus State of M.P. & Anr.
Akhil Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & anr.
Rajiv Lochan soni and others Vs. Rakesh Soni and others
Dipti Kushwah Vs. Vijay Shankar Tiwari and Others
Smt. Krishna Gandhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
M/s Rajsai Traders & others Versus Vinod
Law laid down - After the stage of Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) of the CPC, first stage is to seek leave from the Court under Rule 5 and if the said leave is granted permitting the defendants to defend unconditionally or on such terms as appear to be just, sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the CPC would attract “at the hearing of such summons for judgment”. In case leave not applied or refused at the stage of Full Judgment