Judgments
VICTORIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS RAJDHANI MASALA CO. & ANR
Supertech Limited Versus Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors.
Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon Versus Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Anr.
SAMAUL SK. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.
Hariprasad Bairagi Versus Radheshyam & Ors
Law laid down:- (i) Rules 24 & 32 of Rules Regarding Record of Rights (under M.P. Land Revenue Code) do not contemplate adjudication of title by Tahsildar. It is meant for recording “Consequence of Adjudication” and “Transfer of Ownership” for mutation purpose. Summary proceedings as contemplated in Rule 32 are only for the purpose of recording of rights of parties; and (ii) Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to test the correctness and genuineness of the Will; {Relied and Refeerred:-Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal Vs. Chetu Full Judgment
The State of M.P. & Ors. Versus Yogesh Pathak
Law laid down:- (i) If the purpose of the enquiry is not to find out the truth of the allegations of misconduct but to decide whether to retain the employee against whom a cloud is raised on his conduct such enquiry only serves as a motive for the termination. But where the enquiry is held wherein on the basis of the evidence a definite finding is reached at the back of the employee about his misconduct and such finding forms the Full Judgment
Smt. Manoj Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors
Law laid down:- 1. Government servants in service of any class (Class I to Class IV) who had given written undertaking promising to refund the excess amount are not immune from recovery. 2. However the quantum and nature of recovery in such cases is to be limited to the quantum and nature promised by the employee in the undertaking. 3. If the undertaking does not expressly provide for refund of interest over the principal amount then the interest cannot be recovered from the employee Full Judgment
Ellora Paper Mills Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down:- Application preferred u/s 14 read with Section 11 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking termination of the mandate of originally constituted Arbitral Tribunal and appointment of a new Arbitrator. The question requires answer is whether sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act of 1996 would apply to arbitration proceeding which had already commenced prior to introduction of the amendment by Act 3 of 2016 with effect from 23.10.2015. In other words, whether sub-section (5) Full Judgment
M/s K & J Projects Private Limited Versus Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation & anr.
AICONS Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation & anr.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR VERSUS S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS
Preeti Singh Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR
Suraj Pal Singh Rathor vs. M.P. High Court and another
Law laid down - The scope of interference in a writ petition against the order of punishment passed in the departmental inquiry is limited. The Court does not sit in appeal against the order passed in the departmental inquiry. Unless it is shown by the petitioner that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure or there was any violation of the principles of natural justice, no interference in the inquiry proceeding is required. Interference in the departmental Full Judgment
Lavlesh Kumar Mishra Versus The Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and others
Law laid down:- Writ Appeal directed against the order of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition filed against order passed by the respondent-Bank accepting the resignation of the appellant. Taking note of the facts, if we consider letter of resignation dated 16.9.2017, it is found that this letter of resignation is unconditional one and without any kind of reservation and in fact it refers to Rule 10(1)(b)(i) of the Service Regulations and categorically states that “kindly accept my intention to discontinue Full Judgment