Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 228 to 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 281Nominal IndexRohan Naik And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 228Smt. Sunita Jatav Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 229Deepak Kumar Jain And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 230Juvenile X Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 228 to 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 281
Nominal Index
Rohan Naik And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 228
Smt. Sunita Jatav Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 229
Deepak Kumar Jain And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 230
Juvenile X Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 231
Kachrulal Versus Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 232
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others V. Kunwarlal Chowkikar 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 233
Dr. Rajesh Kothari versus Urban Administration And Housing Department And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 234
Swa. Shrimati Santoshben W/O Dr. Rajesh Jain Charitable Trust Thr. Smt. Sonal Jain W/O Late Mayank J Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. Registrar Public Trust 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 235
Kusum Sahu Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 236
Dr. Ajai Lall v/s State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 237
M/S Lion Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 238
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Gwalior v. M/S Khajuraho Builders And Construction Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 239
Neeru Rajput V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 240
Rajendra Prasad Chourey (dead) through LRs Chitralekha Chourey & Others v. Union of India & Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 241
Nirmal Versus The State Of M.P. 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 242
Smt. Shashi Pandey Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 243
X v Y 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 244
Birla Corporation Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (It And Tp) And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 245
Mrs. Veena Jain Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 246
Commissioner v. Debts Recovery Tribunal And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 247
Ashoka Infroways P.Ltd. v. State Of M.P. & Ors. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 248
Ansar Ahmed Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 249
The Principal v. Pramod Ahirwar 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 250
Smt Kalyani Devi And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 251
Jairamdas Kukreja Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 252
Devendra Kumar Patel Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 253
A Versus N And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 254
Gamar Singh @ Gamariya Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 255
Yasmeen Bee @ Baby And Others Versus Mohammad Shahid Khan And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 256
Ram Prasad Kushwah versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 257
Harivallabh Chaturvedi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 258
M. H. Qureshi Versus State Of M.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 259
Sarban Singh Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 260
Ajay Tiwari Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Other 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 261
Harsh @ Harshvardhan Versus Union Of India Through Principal Secretary And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 262
Smt. Rooplekha Sirsath Versus Public Health And Family Welfare Department And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 263
Indore International Toy Cluster Association Incorporated Under The Companies Act 2013 Thorugh Its D Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 264
Shivam Tripathi And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 265
Rajjak And Others Versus Brajbalal Bai And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 266
Goverdhan Vs. Chief Municipal Officer 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 267
Smt Rajkumari Soni v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 268
Surajbai And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 269
Lakshmi Kant Sharma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 270
Vineet Kumar Tripathi v/s. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 271
Paras Saklecha Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 272
Gurnam Singh Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 273
Akhilesh Pandey Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 274
Rajguru Dubey v. Nagar Palika Parishad Hata 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 275
Manjeet Global Private Limited Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 276
M/S Future Consumer Limited Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 277
Smt. Parwati Verma Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 278
Nagar Palika Parishad Through Its Chief Municipal Officer Shri Sudhir Kumar Versus Kundan Sankhala And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 279
Chief Municipal Officer Versus Laxmi Narayan And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 280
Shri Kameshwar Choubey Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 281
Judgments/Final Orders:
"Modesty Of Women Worshiped In Our Country": MP High Court Refuses To Quash Rape Case On Compromise
Case Title: Rohan Naik And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 228
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case rejected a petition seeking to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC for charges of rape and criminal intimidation, in spite of a compromise between the parties.
Justice Prem Narayan Singh held that offenses like rape, have societal implications, cannot be quashed based solely on a settlement between the accused and the victim.
The Justice Prem Narayan Singh stated that “simply entering into compromise, charges cannot be said to have been mitigated or quashed as the offence is against dignity of women as well as public interest.”
Sarpanch Booked For Rape Can't Be Dismissed From Service For 'Misconduct' Under MP Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993: High Court
Case Title: Smt. Sunita Jatav Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 229
The Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that there is a difference between removal of Panchayat office bearers for "misconduct" and their suspension if charged for offences like rape, which are under separate provisions of the state panchayat law.
In stating so, the court dismissed an appeal against a single judge bench's order pertaining to a plea seeking removal of a Panchayat Sarpanch booked in a rape FIR.
A division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh in its order said, "Perusal of Section 40 reveals that one of the grounds for removal is misconduct, and in explanation, one of the attributes of misconduct is undermining the dignity of a woman". The issue before the bench pertained to whether the registration of an FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the Sarpanch justified his removal under Section 40 of the 1993 Act.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar Jain And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 230
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by guest faculty teachers who were removed from their positions based on the results of students. The court upheld the dismissal, stating that maintaining educational standards through performance benchmarks was justified and necessary.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh sitting at Gwalior, examined the policy directives issued by the Directorate of Public Instructions. According to these directives, guest faculty teachers whose students' results are below 30% were subject to dismissal as part of a broader policy aimed at ensuring educational accountability.
Case Title: Juvenile X Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 231
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in an appeal under the Juvenile Justice Act, granted bail to the appellant, stating that the absence of a male family member to supervise the applicant cannot serve as a sole reason for denying bail or suspension of sentence.
The Court was presided over by Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla who stated, “This Court finds prima-facie the case for grant of bail because the appellant is more than 21 years and he cannot be denied bail/suspension of sentence only on the ground that there is no male member in the family to have control over him.”
Case Title: Kachrulal Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 232
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench granted bail to the accused, in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). The court held that the evidence against the accused was based solely on the co-accused's memorandum which was insufficient to deny bail.
The case was focused on whether the accused's implication, based only on a co-accused's statement, met the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others V. Kunwarlal Chowkikar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 233
In a recent judgement, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a decision of a single judge bench that had validated the absence of a government employee from duty while a complaint against his transfer was pending before the authority.
The division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that remaining absent from duty citing a pending complaint as a reason for the absence, is not a reasonable excuse and the employee is not entitled to salary for the said period according to “no work, no pay” principle.
Case Title: Dr. Rajesh Kothari versus Urban Administration And Housing Department And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 234
In a recent judgement, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held merely on the basis of a complaint or report against the government servant before the date of retirement, he cannot be deprived of his right to a pension or other retiral dues. There must be cognizance of the complaint or report of a police officer on the date of retirement.
Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla observed, “The intention of the legislature is to withhold or withdraw the pension or retiral dues only when the cognizance is taken on the complaint or report of a police officer in a criminal proceeding then only it shall be deemed to be instituted.”
Case title: Swa. Shrimati Santoshben W/O Dr. Rajesh Jain Charitable Trust Thr. Smt. Sonal Jain W/O Late Mayank J Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. Registrar Public Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 235
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an order by the Registrar of Public Trusts, which denied permission to transfer immovable properties from one trust to another owned by the same person.
The Court was presided over by Justice Subodh Abhyankar and discussed Section 14 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 which enumerates that the Registrar's refusal to approve the transaction should only be based on whether the transfer would be detrimental to the public trust. The Court held that referring the matter by the Registrar to the Civil Court for permission was not legally required.
Case title: Kusum Sahu Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 236
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the release of a petitioner's father, who had been imprisoned for nearly a year without substantial evidence linking him to the charges under the IPC for being the director of a company which had been accused of financial fraud.
The court discussed that the petitioner could have either availed the remedy under 226 or approached the Supreme Court but due to belonging to the lower strata of society, he had no finances to approach the Apex Court.
Case title: Dr. Ajai Lall v/s State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 237
The Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court last week quashed an FIR against christian missionary Dr. Ajai Lall accused of trafficking two children, who were earlier living in an orphanage run by a society of which he was the office bearer, and who were subsequently adopted following a family court order in 2017.
In doing so the High Court noted that the adoption of the children was "valid", and that the FIR did not suggest that the ingredients of the offence under Section 370 (Trafficking of person) of the Indian Penal Code were made out. It also said that as the competent court had examined each aspect pertaining to the children while passing the adoption order; therefore, the status of the children can't be re-looked based on the "whims" of respondent chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) Priyank Kanoongo, the Court held.
Case Title: M/S Lion Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 238
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh has held that objections to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, which are raised in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must not be rejected only on the ground of jurisdiction, without touching the merit of the case.
The court observed, “There is no bar to take the plea of jurisdiction by way of an objection under Section 34, even if no such objection was raised under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 and the issue came to an end between the parties.”
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Gwalior v. M/S Khajuraho Builders And Construction Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 239
As a “test case” to give the concept of 'Social Audit' a chance to gain grounds, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently suggested the counsel of an assessee, whose mistake had led to dismissal of assessee's Income Tax Appeal, to do community service.
The division bench of Justices Anand Pathak and Rajendra Kumar Vani also called upon lawyers and other resourceful persons of the society to visit orphanages, old age homes, etc., apprise themselves of the plight of the inmates and contribute to raise the standards of their living.
Case Title: Neeru Rajput V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 240
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Gwalior Bench recently held that an employer is the best judge to organize its workforce and a transfer order cannot be subjected to judicial review unless and until same is found to be influenced by mala fide or arbitrary exercise of powers. Moreover, concept of equality as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, has no application to the cases of transfers.
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Chourey (dead) through LRs Chitralekha Chourey & Others v. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 241
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has said that the appointing authority has the "entire discretion" to appoint or not appoint a person who is involved in an offence concerning moral turpitude even if that person is acquitted.
The high court said that the acquittal would not automatically entitle such a person for employment. The court said that in the case before it, the concerned authority had given proper hearing to the petitioner–accused of attempt to murder–and it could not be said that the authority had made any mistake in rejecting the petitioner's candidature.
Case title: Nirmal Versus The State Of M.P.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 242
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has called for proper maintenance of CCTV CCTV cameras installed in police stations, to preserve citizens' fundamental rights.
The single bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar sitting at Indore said that henceforth, failure to provide footage of the CCTV cameras in police stations will disciplinary action against the Station House Officer concerned and other persons involved in maintenance of the CCTVs.
The development comes in a case where the applicant claimed unfair detention but the CCTV footage of the relevant time could not be produced. The Court expressed concerns over lapses in maintaining the CCTVs, despite the SOP issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Bhopal, which had been in place since January 2024.
Case Title: Smt. Shashi Pandey Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 243
While hearing a matter concerning possession of a land, the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the State authorities cannot act as goons and dispossess any person from their property and then claim that they will not pay any compensation/rent/mesne profit to the "illegally dispossessed".
In observing so, the court reaffirmed that no one can be deprived of their right to property which is not only a Constitutional right but also a human right, noting that in the present matter concerning the alleged dispossession of a woman from land owned by her, had been pending for 17 years from 2007, when the authorities had decided to acquire the land.
Case Title: X v Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 244
The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to interfere with an order rejecting a woman's plea for impleadment of her husband's alleged paramour in divorce proceedings initiated by him after observing that alleged paramour was not a necessary party.
The husband had sought divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act; subsequently the wife moved a plea seeking to implead his alleged paramour in the case, which was rejected by the family court in its March 17, 2021 order.
A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi in its order said, "If the wife failed to prove allegation of adultery levelled against the husband and ultimately the Court comes to the conclusion that the wife without having any proof or foundation defamed the husband and his family members, can grant decree of divorce, if according to the Court the said conduct of the wife comes within the ambit of cruelty".
Case title: Birla Corporation Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (It And Tp) And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 245
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that non-functionality of Income Tax Department's TRACES Portal cannot be grounds for denying the benefit arising to an assessee under statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Anuradha Shukla thus held that an assessee' TDS refund cannot be denied merely on the ground that functionality of 'adjustment of refund' against outstanding demand made by the Department is not presently available at TRACES.
It observed that the Portal (TDS Reconciliation Analysis and Correction Enabling System) has been created to “facilitate” the enforcement of rights and discharge of duties of stakeholders, not to create hurdles.
Case title: Mrs. Veena Jain Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 246
While reiterating that un-communicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of an employee cannot be considered while deciding their promotion, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the state government to restore a woman employee's seniority.
The high court directed the State to grant the petitioner–a state government employee, her promotion adding that her un-communicated "Grade-C" ACR for 2020 should not be considered while deciding her promotion to the post of Super Time Pay Scale (Director).
Case title: Commissioner v. Debts Recovery Tribunal And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 247
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition moved by the Customs and Central Excise Department seeking priority over other secured creditors, for recovery of dues from an assessee's property.
Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi relied on Punjab National Bank V/s Union of India and others (2022) where the Top Court had held that SARFAESI Act will have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Central Excise Act and therefore, dues of the secured creditor will have priority over the dues of the Customs and Excise Department.
The division bench agreed that there is no provision under Section 11-E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 providing for first charge of Customs on the property of the assessee or any person.
Case title: Ashoka Infroways P.Ltd. v. State Of M.P. & Ors. And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 248
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that merely because payment is deferred by the State in terms of the works contract, the same cannot be grounds for a dealer to seek exemption from payment of taxes under the MP Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and MP Entry Tax Act, 1976.
Case title: Ansar Ahmed Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 249
While hearing a bail plea, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed its concern over the "pathetic condition" in which articles collected during investigation are kept in police stations in the State.
The observation came after the court was informed that destruction of forensic samples had occurred as rats had damaged the plastic containers (containing the samples) which was stored at the concerned police station.
Highlighting the need to improve evidence preservation systems in police stations across the state to prevent such incidents in the future a single judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar in its October 4 order said: “This court is also of the considered opinion that the police officers concerned should have taken into account all the relevant factors to protect and safeguard the material seized during an investigation, and although nothing can be done about this spilt milk, but at least this incident has also brought in to the light the pathetic condition, in which the articles/material collected during investigation is kept in the police stations of the State. It is anybody's guess as to what the situation in the police stations at small places would be, when in the present case, the police station was one of the busiest police stations of Indore city".
Reinstatement Is Not Automatic; Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterates
Case Title: The Principal v. Pramod Ahirwar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 250
A Single Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice G.S. Ahluwalia heard a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order passed by the Labour Court. The judgement dealt with a case pertaining to procedural defects in termination of a short-term employee and held it violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).
Justice Ahluwalia gave the rationale behind preferring compensation that even after reinstatement of the respondent, the petitioner can again terminate the workman's services after making payment of retrenchment compensation. Therefore, the Court below should have directed for payment of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Case title: Smt Kalyani Devi And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 251
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in a case addressed the issue of denying a request for land demarcation because the State and Municipal Council were parties to the dispute, questioning the Revenue authorities.
The Court stated that the trial court had drawn an adverse inference against the Revenue authorities without any legitimate basis. The court found that there is no justification for presuming that the Revenue officials would act with mala fides simply because the State and Municipal Council were involved in the suit.
Case Title: Jairamdas Kukreja Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 252
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a Sub-Divisional Officer cannot merely sustain its order by stating that it agrees with the report submitted to it by the area Tahsildar. Reasons to support the findings of the order must be given, it held.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia thus set aside an unreasoned order passed by the SDO rejecting petitioner's application for correction of revenue records and remanded back the matter back for deciding afresh, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties to meet out the report submitted by Tahsildar.
Case title: Devendra Kumar Patel Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 253
The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed the suspension of a contractor's registration with the State Public Works Department, on account of lack of due process.
The petitioner had challenged the suspension of his registration following the termination of a construction contract. The court highlighted that any measures like blacklisting or suspension must follow a fair process, including the issuance of a separate show-cause notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
The high court observed that though the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice before issuing the order of termination of contract which he duly replied, but he was not given any opportunity of hearing.
Case title: A Versus N And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 254
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that provision of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was not framed by the law makers to create an "army of idle or inactive people", waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse.
"It is nowhere manifested that able and well qualified lady has to be always dependent upon her spouse for her maintenance,” Justice Prem Narayan Singh added while reducing the maintenance awarded to Petitioner's post-graduate estranged wife.
Case title: Gamar Singh @ Gamariya Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 255
While granting bail to man accused of murder due to lack of material–other than circumstantial evidence, connecting him to the alleged crime, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed its discontent over the "immature approach" adopted by the Investigating Officer in the probe.
A single judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar in its order noted the State's submission that the evidence collected in the matter–beer bottles which were seized–were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its report on the fingerprints, because the incident had taken place on March 24, whereas the bottles have been seized only on June 17.
Case Title: Yasmeen Bee @ Baby And Others Versus Mohammad Shahid Khan And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 256
Stressing on the importance of issuing notice in property mutation proceedings, the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that issuance of notice–an essential component of fair hearing rule, ensures that adequate opportunity is given to the parties to appear in any proceeding–whether before court or a competent authority.
In doing so the high court observed that the petitioner was never heard by the State in 2015 when it passed the order rejecting the petitioners' mutation of a house. On a bare reading of the 2015 order, the high court said, that it reflected that only the respondent parties along with their counsel were present at the time of hearing and no notices were ever issued to the petitioners.
One Year's Service Completion Sufficient For Pension Benefits, Orders Arrears With Interest; MP HC
Case Title: Ram Prasad Kushwah versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 257
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, addressed a series of writ petitions concerning retired employees who sought the grant of annual increments before superannuation. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the State to provide annual increments due to employees retiring either on 30th June or 31st December of their superannuation year, along with arrears and interest.
Case title: Harivallabh Chaturvedi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 258
Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Gwalior, quashed an order imposing penalty on a retired Forest Ranger Harivallabh Chaturvedi. The court held proper procedures under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 were not followed. The court stated that after a government servant retires, only the Governor can issue such punitive orders based on departmental inquiries.
Case Title: M. H. Qureshi Versus State Of M.P. And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 259
Justice Anil Verma dismissed the writ petition filed by M.H. Qureshi, a Junior Engineer (Electrical Safety), challenging his denial of promotion to the position of Assistant Engineer (Electrical Safety). The Court upheld the Departmental Promotion Committee's (DPC) decision, citing the petitioner's failure to meet the required benchmarks, and emphasized that judicial interference in DPC decisions is warranted only under specific conditions.
Repatriation Of Deputationist Must Be Based On Valid Reasons, Cannot Be Done As Punishment: MP HC
Case Title: Sarban Singh Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 260
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi quashed the repatriation order of a Water Resources Department engineer from his deputation at the Narmada Valley Development Department, holding that repatriation must be based on valid administrative reasons and not used as a punitive measure. The court found the replacement of the petitioner with an officer facing corruption charges was arbitrary and prejudicial, given the department's practice of denying promotions to officers with disciplinary records. While acknowledging that deputationists have no inherent right to continue indefinitely, the court emphasized that repatriation decisions must be substantiated by legitimate administrative exigencies.
Case Title: Ajay Tiwari Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Other
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 261
While hearing a plea seeking recall of an order upholding the direction for registration of FIR against Petitioner, the Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed its concern at the "clandestine manner" in which police authorities provided certain documents to the Petitioner-accused, despite statutory prohibitions.
In stating so, the high court observed that the "misconduct shown by the Officers is a serious misconduct and should not be dealt with in a light manner".
Case title: Harsh @ Harshvardhan Versus Union Of India Through Principal Secretary And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 262
Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that 'gang' is not defined under the penal law and a person's preventive detention cannot be extended merely because his alleged gang member committed further crimes.
While setting aside extension of Petitioner's detention under the National Security Act (NSA), the division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed, “There is no such definition of ''gang'' in the penal law, there is only a provision of formation of unlawful assembly. The petitioner is not the member of that unlawful assembly which has committed the Crime No.119/2024 and he is not the accused in the aforesaid crime.”
Case Title: Smt. Rooplekha Sirsath Versus Public Health And Family Welfare Department And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 263
Justice Subodh Abhyankar quashed a recovery order issued against a retired Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, holding that excess payment cannot be recovered from retired government employees in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud. Following Supreme Court precedents, the court ordered refund of the recovered amount with 6% interest, emphasizing that recoveries from retired employees are impermissible when the error originated from the department rather than the employee.
Case Title: Indore International Toy Cluster Association Incorporated Under The Companies Act 2013 Thorugh Its D Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 264
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently condemned the act of State authorities holding a company (SPV) liable for delay in implementation of an industrial project when the authorities themselves failed to deliver vacant possession of the entire allotted land.
The court observed that since a considerable part of the land was under encroachment, and the entire land was not allotted to the petitioners, therefore it would be unjustifiable on behalf of the State Government to issue notice to the petitioners to establish the industry on an encroached land.
Case title: Shivam Tripathi And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 265
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the final answer key for the 2024 Madhya Pradesh State Service and Forest Service Preliminary Examination. It reiterated that the expertise of academic bodies in competitive examinations should be respected, limiting the court's scope for interference “The law on the subject is quite clear. The court should not interfere with the expert body's conclusions unless there is compelling evidence of material error or bias. Courts should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption,” single bench of Justice Vishal Mishra observed.
Case Title: Rajjak And Others Versus Brajbalal Bai And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 266
Dismissing a revision plea concerning a title suit over a motor garage, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the defendant cannot contend that the plaintiffs' right to sue had accrued when their title was threatened, adding that period of limitation would begin when the plaintiffs actually perceive threat to their title.
The court further affirmed that claim for declaration of title over property is governed by Article 58 Limitation Act which prescribes three-year period for instituting a suit for declaration and the period of limitation begins when the right to sue first accrues. The court also added this has to be seen from the plaintiff's point of view and not from the defendants.
Case Title: Goverdhan Vs. Chief Municipal Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 267
A Single bench consisting Justice Sanjay Dwivedi overturned a Labour Court order and ruled that once a workman claims continuous employment, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to disprove the claim with documentary evidence. The Court held that oral termination without notice and retrenchment compensation violates Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Finding that the employer failed to produce records disproving the worker's continuous employment claim, the Court ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages.
Inordinate Unexplained Delay In Service Claims Attracts Principle Of Laches And Bars Relief: MP HC
Case Title: Smt Rajkumari Soni v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 268
A single judge bench consisting Justice Vishal Mishra dismissed a petition seeking time-bound promotion benefits under the 1999 scheme, holding that inordinate delay without explanation bars relief under principles of laches. The court found that the 14-year delay between retirement and petition filing, with no substantial efforts to claim benefits during service or immediately after retirement, disentitled the petitioner from discretionary relief. The court emphasized that while delays may be condoned with proper justification, gross negligence in pursuing claims cannot be rewarded.
Case title: Surajbai And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 269
The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a 14-year-old murder conviction of two women who were also sentenced to life imprisonment, while observing that the trial court did not handle the case properly as "false evidence" had been given by prosecution witnesses.
The high court further observed that even the police deliberately did not investigate the matter properly and left multiple angles unattended, thereby facilitating the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the two women.
Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute Mandatory Basic Qualification: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Lakshmi Kant Sharma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 270
Justice Anil Verma dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a teaching position application, holding that a Master's degree in English cannot substitute for the mandatory requirement of a Bachelor's degree in English under the Madhya Pradesh School Education Services (Teaching Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2018. The Court upheld that candidates must possess the specific undergraduate qualification in the subject they intend to teach, regardless of higher qualifications in the same subject.
Case Title: Vineet Kumar Tripathi v/s. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 271
The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case overturned the termination of a Junior Assistant employed on a contractual basis with the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation.
In doing so the court said that the authority had taken a drastic step in terminating the petitioner's services just because a criminal case had been registered against him for allegedly accepting a bribe. This when the Madhya Pradesh Sadak Vikas Nigam (Sewa Bharti Tatha Sewa Sharten) Niyam, 2016 did not contain any provision stating that services can be terminated only on registration of an offence.
Case title: Paras Saklecha Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 272
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a plea seeking tabling of the Jain Commission report on the 2017 Mandsaur farmer shooting incident before the legislative assembly, after noting that 6-7 years had lapsed since the report was submitted by the Commission to the state government.
The court noted that there was no consequence provided in the Commission of Inquiry Act if the commission's report was not placed before the assembly within the 6-month time period as mentioned.
Case Title: Gurnam Singh Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 273
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Jain upheld work charged employees' right to time-bound promotion benefits (kramonnati), quashing recovery orders issued against them. The Court held that work charged and contingency paid employees constitute a common class under service rules, entitled to identical benefits including kramonnati. Rejecting the state's argument based on Ram Naresh Rawat's case, the Court emphasized that work charged employees, receiving regular pay scales and revisions, cannot be denied benefits available to others in their class without justifiable grounds.
Case Title: Akhilesh Pandey Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 274
In a case of alleged atrocity carried out in a police station, the Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Director General of Police to ensure that each and every room of Police Stations in districts across the State are fitted with CCTV Camera with audio facility within three months, failure of which would amount to contempt.
The court said this after observing that in the present case the petitioner was "badly beaten" by the police personnel in the concerned police station that too "deliberately" in a room which did not have CCTV camera.
Monetary Compensation Can Substitute Reinstatement Even In Cases Of Illegal Termination: MP HC
Case Title: Rajguru Dubey v. Nagar Palika Parishad Hata
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 275
A Single Judge Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia upheld the Labour Court's decision to award monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to a terminated daily wage worker. The Court held that even when termination violates Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, reinstatement with back wages is not an automatic remedy. Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that for daily wage workers, monetary compensation can better serve the ends of justice than reinstatement, particularly in cases of procedurally defective termination.
Case Title: Manjeet Global Private Limited Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 276
The MP High Court at its Indore Bench has held that the Labour Court is possessed with the power to issue notice to a party which may not be a party to the reference.
The division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed, “Since reference has been made in earlier round of litigation which is registered as 11/ID/2024 and looking to the fact that the rights of large number of employees is at stake, it is always appropriate to implead the subsequent purchaser as party since had already taken over the assets and liabilities of the company, therefore, the appellants cannot raise a plea that since they came subsequently into picture, no relief can be claimed against them.”
Case Title: M/S Future Consumer Limited Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 277
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench, dismissed a writ petition which was filed by Future Consumer Limited, challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under Section 73 of GST Act. The petitioner stated that they were denied the right to personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act.
The division bench comprising of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi discussed on the petitioner's claim regarding fulfilment of procedural requirement for requesting a personal hearing.
The Court determined that Future Consumer Limited did not appear before the tax authority and provided no written reply or request for a personal hearing in response to the show-cause notice issued under Section 73(1).
Administrative Error In Pay Fixation Cannot Lead To Post-Retirement Recovery With Interest: MP HC
Case Title: Smt. Parwati Verma Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 278
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari quashed a recovery order seeking excess payments with interest from a retired Subedar. The Court held that recovery of excess payments from retired government employees, particularly when there is no misrepresentation or fraud, is impermissible after four years of retirement under Rule 9(4) of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. The Court emphasized that while principal amounts might be recalculated, imposing interest on excess payments made due to administrative errors is harsh and unwarranted, especially for low-income retirees.
Merger Into State Education Service Doesn't Nullify Previous Service Benefits: MP HC
Case Title: Nagar Palika Parishad Through Its Chief Municipal Officer Shri Sudhir Kumar Versus Kundan Sankhala And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 279
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi upheld the rights of Shikshakarmi teachers to receive benefits equivalent to regular municipal employees. The Court ruled that teachers initially appointed under municipal rules in 1998-99 and subsequently merged into the state education service are entitled to all service benefits, including pension, from their initial appointment date. The Court rejected the municipality's argument distinguishing between regular municipal employees and Shikshakarmis, finding no difference in appointment procedures and service conditions under the 1998 Rules.
Case Title: Chief Municipal Officer Versus Laxmi Narayan And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 280
While setting aside an industrial court's order, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya High Court observed that in a claim for regularization, the Industrial Court should not have granted the relief for classification which had not been prayed for by the workman.
In doing so the court, reiterated the "basic difference" between regularization and classification, referring to the Supreme Court's decision which said that a classified employee is only entitled for minimum of the basic pay without any increment.
Power Of Review Under MP Civil Services Rules Must Be Exercised Within Six Months, Delayed Review Of Retired Officer's Exoneration Invalid: MP HC
Case Title: Shri Kameshwar Choubey Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 281
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi invalidated the State's delayed review of a retired Sub Divisional Magistrate's exoneration in a departmental inquiry. The court held that the power of review under Rule 29(1) of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, must be exercised within six months, and any review beyond this period is illegal. The court ordered the release of withheld retirement benefits with 8% interest.
Other developments:
A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been moved in the Madhya Pradesh High Court for a direction to the state authorities to avoid "unnecessary delays" in deciding bail pleas of accused persons and suspension of sentence pleas of convicts.
The plea states that the same infringes upon the right of these persons to "speedy justice" which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, advocate Amitabha Gupta, in his plea has sought to draw the court's attention to the "practice of public prosecutors seeking adjournments"in the name of bringing documents such as "criminal antecedents and custody reports" of the accused persons.
While hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition highlighting allegedly unsanitary drinking water conditions for inmates of Central Jail in Jabalpur, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the jail Superintendent to get the drinking water tested for its potability and indicate how it is stored and supplied to the inmates.
Issuing notice on the PIL petition a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva (who was the Acting Chief Justice when the matter was listed) and Justice Vinay Saraf in its September 23 order said: "The Superintendent, Central Jail Jabalpur shall have the drinking water tested from an approved laboratory for its potability and reports be submitted before the next date of hearing. The Superintendent of Jail shall also file the report as to how the potable drinking water is stored and supplied to the Jail inmates".
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday granted bail to a man accused of shouting 'Pakistan Zindabad Hindustan Murdabad' slogan on the condition that he shall salute the National Flag 21 times, twice a month, while raising the slogan "Bharat Mata ki Jai".
A bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal put this condition while granting bail to Faizal @ Faizan, booked under Section 153A IPC, noting that this condition may enthuse in him a sense of responsibility and pride for the country in which he is born and living.
"...he shall continuously mark his presence before Police Station Misrod, Bhopal between 10 A.M. to 12 'O'Clock of the day on every 1st and 4th Tuesday of month till final conclusion of trial and shall salute the National Flag unfurled on the building of police station 21 (twenty one) time raising slogan "Bharat Mata ki Jai". Aforesaid condition has to be necessarily incorporated in bail papers," Court's order reads which also directs him to furnish a bond of Rs. 50,000/-.
Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the State to accept the admission form of a student leader, who was barred from applying for the post Basic B.Sc. and M.Sc. Nursing courses due to pending criminal cases.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf stated that merely having pending criminal proceedings, without any conviction, should not disqualify a candidate from pursuing education, particularly when the charges do not involve moral turpitude.
The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (October 23) sought the stand of the Centre and State in a public interest litigation petition pertaining to noise pollution and Traffic congestion, particularly in the city.
A division bench of Justice Sanjiv Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf directed the respondents including Union of India, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the MP Pollution Control Board to file their responses in four weeks.
The plea states that noise pollution level is crossing the permissible limit in entire state. It further states that traffic congestion in major cities of Madhya Pradesh is resulting in large number of daily accidents.