Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
The General Manager and another Vs. M/s Raisingh and Company
Law Laid Down - The extension in time does not extend the period of completion of the agreement. It only permits the Contractor to complete works subject to payment of liquidated damages, as agreed to. Liquidated damages are claimed on account of breach of the contract and such amount cannot be said to be unreasonable or is by way of penalty. In absence of any allegation that the Award passed by the Arbitrator is against the public policy, liquidated damages imposed in Full Judgment
Smt. Megha Singh Sindhe Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
Law Laid Down - 1. Vague, unspecific and sweeping allegations of cruelty against the sister-in-law (Nanad) who was residing elsewhere are insufficient to sustain a charge-sheet u/S. 304-B of IPC in the absence of any other cogent and compelling evidence pointing towards subjection of prosecutrix to dowry demand related cruelty. Full Judgment
Sandeep Jain vs. Mrs. Nivedita Jain
Law laid down - Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act- 1.In determining the amount of maintenance income/financial position of the wife’s parents or other relations is immaterial. 2. Merely because the wife is well qualified, no presumption can be drawn that:- (i) she is in a position to maintain herself. (ii) she is out of employment on her own volition (iii) If she is not in a job it is due to her inaction 3. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount Full Judgment
Prabhulal and 3 others Vs. State of M.P.
Law Laid down - If the incident took place suddenly without any premeditation, the accused persons merely on the ground that they assaulted simultaneously cannot be held guilty for causing injury or death for sharing common intention with each other. In such circumstances, they are responsible for their individual act. Reliance is place in the case of Balu vs. State (UT of Pondicheery) {2016} 15 SCC 471. Full Judgment
Khoob Singh - V/s - The State of M.P.
Muyinat Adenike and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another
Malkhan Singh Malviya Vs. State of M.P.
Law Laid Down - (i) Even an employee not borne out of regular establishment is entitled to be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before a stigmatic order can be passed terminating his services. Mere issuance of show cause notice and calling of reply would not suffice without supply of adverse material used against the employee and affording him opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his defence. Full Judgment
Kuldeep Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. M/s Optel Telecommunication Ltd
Law Laid down - The learned Arbitrator is bound by the terms of Agreement. Therefore, an award rendered by such an arbitrator cannot be sustained if an Arbitrator has traveled beyond the terms of the agreement to hold that there was an oral agreement prior to placing of Advance Purchase Order, which was accepted by the respondents. The terms of the contract stand crystallized with the issuance of Advance Purchase Order and acceptance of the same. The Arbitral Tribunal has to take Full Judgment
Ambrish & Another v/s State of M.P. & Another
Mukesh Kumar Umar & Another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Satish Nayak Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Chatur Singh & Another Vs. State of MP
Atibal and Others Vs. State of MP
Parvez Khan Vs. The State of M.P. and others
Pushpendra Vs. Anjani Kumar Pandey
Smt. Sunita Bai Chaudhary vs. Omkar Singh & others
Law laid down - Principle of Interpretation of Statute- Each word, phrase or sentence is to be construed in the light of general purpose of the Act. If meaning of statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect to irrespective of consequence. Section 21 (3) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993- The first no confidence motion was initiated before completion of two and half years from the date Sarpanch entered her office. This motion was not tenable Full Judgment