Latest Madhya Pradesh Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
A Gwalior Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla confirmed the conviction of Chhatrapal Rawat for kidnapping, raping and strangling a nine-year-old girl at a village wedding in May 2022, on the evidence of an 11-year-old cousin who saw him carry the sleeping child away and DNA matches across the clothes of both, but held the case was not
A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal allowed five State appeals and set aside single-judge orders that had quashed recoveries of up to Rs 15.8 lakh from ministerial staff of the Madhya Pradesh Police, holding that employees who kept an erroneous ad hoc increase under court stays from 2006 to 2018 cannot invoke Rafiq Masih, and t
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt at Indore held that the Sub Divisional Officer misread a High Court direction to verify documents and instead opened a fresh Section 250 proceeding for occupants who were never found on the land at demarcation, dismissed five writ petitions by those occupants as an abuse of process, and told the revenue authorities to hand over the 0
Justice Vinay Saraf at Indore held that the twelve-year limitation for executing a January 2000 award ran from the day the Section 34 objections were dismissed in 2002, not from the second appeal decided in 2019, because the doctrine of merger has no application to arbitral awards.
Justice Alok Awasthi at Indore set aside a two-year sentence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that a complainant who already faced police action, a memory card with no Section 65B certificate and notes found under an open register did not prove demand or acceptance. The Lokayukt plea for leave to appeal the partial acquittal was d
Justice Vinay Saraf upheld the dismissal, as time-barred, of a challenge by an Indore cloth trader to a Rs 2.27 lakh ex parte award, holding that once she obtained a certified copy from the arbitration board, the three-month limitation ran from that day despite the admitted failure to deliver a signed copy under Section 31(5).
Justice Ashish Shroti dismissed a Gram Panchayat second appeal pending since 2004, holding that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act a sale of property worth under Rs 100 is complete on delivery of possession, and an unregistered deed written at the time does not take that title away.
Justice Vinay Saraf referred a developer and the one brother who signed a 2.358-hectare development agreement to arbitration, but refused to rope in his two co-owner brothers, finding nothing on record, not even the invocation notice, that connected them to the deal.
Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar held that a complainant who blamed the demand on the station house officer in one breath and the constable in the next, a six-day delay, no shadow witness and notes the accused was made to pick up left the Lokayukta trap case short of proof.
Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal declined a mandamus to register an FIR, setting out the layered remedies under the CrPC and the BNSS and holding that sanction operates at cognizance and not before it.
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt allowed a first appeal under Section 96, holding the buyer was ready and willing and that time was not of the essence under an informal receipt.
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt held the Tehsildar, Sub Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioner were wrong that permission was needed, and quashed an ex parte consequential order too.
Justices Anand Pathak and Vinay Saraf held OBCs are adequately represented under Article 16(4), struck down the 2019 Amendment Act, and saved appointments made up to 29 September 2022.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai refused to quash a sessions trial, holding that the sixteen-year delay and the genuineness of the documents are matters for evidence.
Justice Vinay Saraf holds that the cross-reference to Section 21 must be read as Section 37(2), that a referred case must be decided on merits, and that a civil revision lies against its rejection.
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt dismisses eight writ petitions by the Indore Development Authority against its own department's order, finding no perversity in the release of land from Town Planning Scheme 169-A.
An anti-corruption agency lost its appeal against an acquittal without the merits being heard. Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar applies the recent shift in limitation law under which the State is judged by the same standard as any private litigant.
Charged in Bhopal, and charged again in Indore over the same children, the petitioner said he was being prosecuted twice. The Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that each incident of penetrative sexual assault is a distinct offence.
An urgency clause in 2002, an award in 2004, no compensation ever paid, and the landowners still in possession. The Madhya Pradesh High Court holds the acquisition lapsed under both the old Act and the new.
The revenue record showed a well and the department's own witness admitted the land was irrigated. The Madhya Pradesh High Court revalues it at Rs 10.5 lakh a hectare and removes the 20% development deduction.
Fifty trees felled, a pathway blocked, an assault unregistered — three unrelated grievances, one bench, one day, and the same answer about a remedy nobody had tried.
An anti-corruption agency lost its case, took a certified copy, and then spent more than a year routing a proposal through its own hierarchy. The High Court refuses to condone the delay, and with it the appeal.
A suo motu reference for a survivor of sexual assault reached the Indore Bench, was examined, and was decided inside two days. On the one fact that decides everything, the Court took the Board's figure over the file's.
Applying the protocol a Division Bench laid down in February, the Court clears a termination beyond the statutory ceiling after fresh verification of the survivor's fitness.
