Judgments - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankarlal & Another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
The Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd. Dabra Vs. Rama Erection Pvt. Ltd. & Others.
Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, prescribes time limit for presentation of an executed document for registration, but it does not prescribe any time limit for Registering Authority to register or refuse registration of such document. Full Judgment
Sangram & Ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - (1) Testimony of interested witnesses can be relied upon for conviction. (2) Some discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses which does not affect the case cannot be the basis for rejection of the evidence. Full Judgment
Mahipalsingh and Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Ganesh Prasad Garg Vs. General Manager, South East Coal Limited & others
In the present case, as already discussed by this Court that the authority which has issued the charge sheet has already been vested with the power to issue the charge sheet, nothing survives for this Court on the question of framing of charges as it is for the competent authority only to decide the case on merits in accordance with law. Full Judgment
State of MP V. Rajesh Sharma
Indian Construction Co. (Guj.) Ltd. Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation and Anr
Phool Singh Vs. State of MP and another
Jai Singh Sisodiya & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Satyanarayan Pandey Vs. The State of M.P. & Others
Law laid down - The statutory rules can be annulled or canceled by adopting the same procedure by which rules were brought into force. Rules cannot be supplanted or canceled by issuing executive instructions. In the event of conflict between a general or a special provision, the special provision must prevail. Full Judgment
State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Aamin & others
Arun & another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Aamin & others
Rishi Prakash Gautam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Jafar Khan S/o Mahabub Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
K.K. Mishra - V/s - State of MP and Another
M/s Limelight Industries & Another - V/s - Union of India & Others
Whether consent for transfer of lease hold rights under Rule 37 is an administrative function or a quasi-judicial function – It has been held that the consent for transfer of mining lease in terms of Section 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, is an administrative order and is required to be authenticated and communicated before it becomes a decision of the State Government. A distinction between administrative functions and quasi-judicial functions discussed. It is also held that an administrative order Full Judgment