AFR

(Approved For Reporting)

Judgements
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
[ Edited and Compiled By ]
(Umesh Bhagwati)
Civil Judge Class-II
Shivpuri

S.N. CASE NO. PARTIES JUDGEMENT PRESENTED DOJ LAW EVOLVED ON

1. CRR 06276/2019 Harish Dayani HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAGDISH 06-01-2020 Sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration act,
VS The State Of PRASAD GUPTA 1954 may be substituted by penalty if the offending act is
Madhya Pradesh not punishable under the Food Safety and Standard Act,
2006, by giving benefit of changes in the law
2. AA 00088/2019 Denis Chem Lab HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 06-01-2020 Section 9 (1)(e) and sec 43 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Limited VS The PAUL Act, 1996-
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
3. WP 10710/2017 Akhilesh Singh HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA 08-01-2020 Co-defendant has right to cross-examine the other
VS Krishan DUBEY defendant.
Bahadur Singh
4. WA 00821/2019 Pradeep Kori VS HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY 14-01-2020 The intra court appeal would not lie in respect of an order
The State Of KUMAR SHUKLA passed by the court in a proceedings connected with
Madhya Pradesh criminal jurisdiction.
5. WP 03083/2017 Sheikh Mohd. HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 16-01-2020 If the order suffers from civil consequences, the principle
Arif VS Dr. Hari DWIVEDI of natural justice has to be followed by providing hearing
Singh Gaou to the sufferer. The hearing should be done by the same
University Sagar authority who has to decide the case. Hearing by one
authority and order passed by another is not a sufficient
compliance of the principle of natural justice.
 6. WA 01401/2019 Sumit Khaneja HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY 24-01-2020 The intra court appeal would not lie in respect of an order
VS The State Of KUMAR SHUKLA passed by the court in a proceedings connected with
Madhya Pradesh criminal jurisdiction.
7. WP 02468/2020 M/S Technosys HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY 10-02-2020 The order of blacklisting the contractor from entering into
Security Systems KUMAR SHUKLA contracts tantamounts to rendering the contractor jobless,
Private Ltd. VS therefore involves civil consequences and cannot be
The State Of passed without notice and speaking order.
Madhya Pradesh
8. MP 05217/2019 Smt. Amrita HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA 12-02-2020 The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Bhatia VS DUBEY Citizens Act, 2007
Baljeet Singh
Bhatia
9. CRA 00514/2011 Anil Patel VS HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. K. 18-02-2020 Any accused cannot be convicted upon the basis of
The State Of SHRIVASTAVA suggestions given by the defence counsel in
Madhya Pradesh crossexamination of the witnesses. The accused may take
different types of plea in his defence but that cannot be
treated as acceptance of the accused and cannot be made
the basis of his conviction.
10. WP 03694/2019 Ashutosh Pandey HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY 25-02-2020 The Circulars, amendment in the Fundamental Rules
VS The KUMAR SHUKLA regarding age of superannuation of State Government
Managing emloyees are not ipso facto applicable to the employees of
Director the Corporation. The fixation of age of superannuation is
within the domain of the employer and the Rule Making
Authority.
11. WP 10006/2016 Chandramani HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 25-02-2020 The date of institution of judicial proceedings as per Rule-
Tripathi VS The DWIVEDI 9(6)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension)
State Of Madhya Rules, 1976 – it is deemed to be instituted on the date on
Pradesh which the complaint is made to the Police Officer but not
the date when cognizance is taken by the Court on the said
complaint.
12. WA 00079/2016 M/S Adarsh HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 Rate of duty provided under Entry 3 of Part-B of the Table
Stone Company under Section 3(1) of the M.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1949
(Crusher) VS as applicable to mines, cannot be applied and enforced
The State Of upon those stone crushing units which are only carrying on
Madhya Pradesh stone crushing activity whether or not situated in or
13. WP 00051/2014 M/S Balaji Stone HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 adjacent to a mine.
Crusher Jaiswal
Bhawan, J.R. If one has a mining license and carrying out the mining
Birla Road, activity being covered under the provisions of the Mines
Kolgawan, Satna Act, 1952 and his stone crushing unit is situated in or
VS The State Of adjacent to the mine, he will be liable to pay the rate of
Madhya Pradesh electricity duty as applicable to mines as envisaged in
Entry 3 of Part B of Table appended to Section 3(1) of the
14. WA 00262/2013 M/S Balaji Stone HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 1949 Act. However, whether such stone crushing unit is
Crusher VS situated in or adjacent to a mine, shall depend upon the
Chariman Cum facts of each case
Managing
Director Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.140/2011 (State of
15. WA 00261/2013 Sns [Minerals] HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 Madhya Pradesh vs. M/s Stuti and others) decided on
Limited Po 15.12.2016 is overruled.
Maihar VS
Chairman Cum Division Bench in LPA No.247/1998 (M/s Vastu vs. M.P.
Manaing Electricity Board & others) decided on 01.06.2004
Director correctly observed that as to whether a crushing unit
situated outside the mining area or to be more precise not
16. WA 00260/2013 Abhitap Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 situated in or adjacent to a mine will also be covered by
Shukla VS the said definition of ‘mine’ was not in issue nor decided
Chairman Cum in M.P. No.673/1993 (Stone Crusher Owners Association
Managing & others vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & others)
Director decided on 19.10.1994.
17. WA 00832/2012 M/S Ram Kunwar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020
Constructin (P) Ltd.
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
18. WA 00587/2012 M/S Trilok Singh HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 Rate of duty provided under Entry 3 of Part-B of the Table
Khanduja Stone under Section 3(1) of the M.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1949
Crusher VS as applicable to mines, cannot be applied and enforced
Madhya Pradesh upon those stone crushing units which are only carrying on
Purva Kshetra stone crushing activity whether or not situated in or
Vidyut Vitraran adjacent to a mine.
Co. Ltd
19. WA 00477/2012 M/S Mahamaya HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 If one has a mining license and carrying out the mining
Stone Crusher activity being covered under the provisions of the Mines
VS M.P. State Act, 1952 and his stone crushing unit is situated in or
Electricity Board adjacent to the mine, he will be liable to pay the rate of
electricity duty as applicable to mines as envisaged in
20. WA 00349/2012 Rahi Granite VS HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 Entry 3 of Part B of Table appended to Section 3(1) of the
Madhya Pradesh 1949 Act. However, whether such stone crushing unit is
Poorve Kshetra situated in or adjacent to a mine, shall depend upon the
Vidyut Vitran Co. facts of each case
Limited
21. WA 00348/2012 M/S Radhey HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.140/2011 (State of
Radhey Granite Madhya Pradesh vs. M/s Stuti and others) decided on
VS Madhya 15.12.2016 is overruled.
Pradesh Poorve
Kshetra Vidyut Division Bench in LPA No.247/1998 (M/s Vastu vs. M.P.
Vitran Co. Electricity Board & others) decided on 01.06.2004
Limited correctly observed that as to whether a crushing unit
situated outside the mining area or to be more precise not
22. WA 00347/2012 Jai Hanuman HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 situated in or adjacent to a mine will also be covered by
Stone Crusher the said definition of ‘mine’ was not in issue nor decided
VS Madhya in M.P. No.673/1993 (Stone Crusher Owners Association
Pradesh Poorva & others vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & others)
Kshetra Vidyut decided on 19.10.1994.
Vitran Co. Ltd.
23. WA 00346/2012 Balaji Stone Crusher HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020
VS Madhya Pradesh
Poorva Kshetra Vidyut
Vitran Co. Limited
24. WA 00345/2012 Jai Jagdambey HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 Rate of duty provided under Entry 3 of Part-B of the Table
Stone VS under Section 3(1) of the M.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1949
Madhya Pradesh as applicable to mines, cannot be applied and enforced
Poorve Kshetra upon those stone crushing units which are only carrying on
Vidyut Vitran Co. stone crushing activity whether or not situated in or
Limited adjacent to a mine.
25. WA 00344/2012 M/S Jai Bajrang HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020
Gramoudyog VS If one has a mining license and carrying out the mining
Madhya Pradesh activity being covered under the provisions of the Mines
Poorve Kshetra Act, 1952 and his stone crushing unit is situated in or
Vidyut Vitran Co. adjacent to the mine, he will be liable to pay the rate of
Limited electricity duty as applicable to mines as envisaged in
Entry 3 of Part B of Table appended to Section 3(1) of the
26. WA 00321/2012 Shree Ram Stone HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 1949 Act. However, whether such stone crushing unit is
Crusher VS situated in or adjacent to a mine, shall depend upon the
Madhya Pradesh facts of each case
Poorva Kshetra
Vidyut Vitran Co. Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.140/2011 (State of
Ltd. Madhya Pradesh vs. M/s Stuti and others) decided on
27. WA 00313/2012 M/S Guru Arjun HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 15.12.2016 is overruled.
Minerals VS The
State Of Madhya Division Bench in LPA No.247/1998 (M/s Vastu vs. M.P.
Pradesh Electricity Board & others) decided on 01.06.2004
correctly observed that as to whether a crushing unit
28. WA 00278/2012 M/S. Eastern HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 situated outside the mining area or to be more precise not
Minerals VS situated in or adjacent to a mine will also be covered by
Madhya Pradesh the said definition of ‘mine’ was not in issue nor decided
Poorva Kshetra in M.P. No.673/1993 (Stone Crusher Owners Association
Vidyut Vit.Co. & others vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & others)
Ltd. decided on 19.10.1994.
29. WA 00261/2012 Prathihar Stone HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020
Crusher VS Madhya
Pradesh Poorva
Kshetra Vidyut
Vitran Co. Ltd.
30. WA 00260/2012 Ghai Stone HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 Rate of duty provided under Entry 3 of Part-B of the Table
Crusher VS under Section 3(1) of the M.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1949
Madhya Pradesh as applicable to mines, cannot be applied and enforced
Poorva Kshetra upon those stone crushing units which are only carrying on
Vidyut Vitran stone crushing activity whether or not situated in or
Company adjacent to a mine.
Limited
31. WA 00259/2012 Akhil Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 If one has a mining license and carrying out the mining
Jaiswal VS activity being covered under the provisions of the Mines
Madhya Pradesh Act, 1952 and his stone crushing unit is situated in or
Poorva Kshetra adjacent to the mine, he will be liable to pay the rate of
Vidyut Vitran electricity duty as applicable to mines as envisaged in
Com. Ltd. Entry 3 of Part B of Table appended to Section 3(1) of the
1949 Act. However, whether such stone crushing unit is
32. WA 00258/2012 M/S Pali Stone HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 situated in or adjacent to a mine, shall depend upon the
Crusher VS facts of each case
Madhya
Pradeshpoorva Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.140/2011 (State of
Kshetra Vidyut Madhya Pradesh vs. M/s Stuti and others) decided on
Vitran Company 15.12.2016 is overruled.
Limited
33. WA 00257/2012 Shraddha Stone HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 Division Bench in LPA No.247/1998 (M/s Vastu vs. M.P.
Crusher VS Electricity Board & others) decided on 01.06.2004
Madhya Pradesh correctly observed that as to whether a crushing unit
Poorva Kshetra situated outside the mining area or to be more precise not
Vidyut Vitran Co. situated in or adjacent to a mine will also be covered by
Ltd. the said definition of ‘mine’ was not in issue nor decided
in M.P. No.673/1993 (Stone Crusher Owners Association
34. WA 00252/2012 M/S Fair Dea HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 & others vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & others)
Minerals Kari
Road Alampura decided on 19.10.1994.
VS Madhya
Pradesh Poorva
Kshetra Vidyut
Vitran Co.Ltd.
35. WA 00250/2012 M/S Sharda HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 Rate of duty provided under Entry 3 of Part-B of the Table
Minerals And under Section 3(1) of the M.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1949
Indutries Donga as applicable to mines, cannot be applied and enforced
VS Madhya upon those stone crushing units which are only carrying on
Pradesh Poorva
stone crushing activity whether or not situated in or
Kshetra Vidyut
Vitran Co.Ltd.
adjacent to a mine.

36. WA 00249/2012 M/S Bundelkhan HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 If one has a mining license and carrying out the mining
Associates, Donga, activity being covered under the provisions of the Mines
VSMadhya
Act, 1952 and his stone crushing unit is situated in or
Pradesh Poorava
Kshetra Vidyut
adjacent to the mine, he will be liable to pay the rate of
Vitran Co. Ltd. electricity duty as applicable to mines as envisaged in
Entry 3 of Part B of Table appended to Section 3(1) of the
37. WA 00247/2012 M/S Krishna HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 1949 Act. However, whether such stone crushing unit is
Minerals &
situated in or adjacent to a mine, shall depend upon the
Industris New
Industral Area VS
facts of each case
Madhya Pradesh
Poorva Kshetra Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.140/2011 (State of
Vidyut Vitran Co. Madhya Pradesh vs. M/s Stuti and others) decided on
Ltd. 15.12.2016 is overruled.
38. WA 00237/2012 Rajendra Granite HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020
Chandrapura VS Division Bench in LPA No.247/1998 (M/s Vastu vs. M.P.
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & others) decided on 01.06.2004
East Zone correctly observed that as to whether a crushing unit
Electricity situated outside the mining area or to be more precise not
Distribution situated in or adjacent to a mine will also be covered by
Company Ltd the said definition of ‘mine’ was not in issue nor decided
39. WA 00202/2012 M/S Vandey HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 28-02-2020 in M.P. No.673/1993 (Stone Crusher Owners Association
Matram Gitti & others vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & others)
Nirman VS decided on 19.10.1994.
Madhya Pradesh
Poorv Kshetra
Vidyut Vitarm Co.
Ltd.
40. FA 01825/2019 Dharmendra HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE 02-03-2020 Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for judicial
Tiwari VS Smt. MOHAMMED FAHIM ANWAR separation
Rashmi Tiwari
41. CEA 00003/2013 M/S Agrawal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 13-03-2020
Colour Photo
Industry VS
Commissioner
Of Central
Excise
42. CEA 00002/2013 M/S Agrawal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 13-03-2020
Colour Quick
Photography service
System VS
&
Commissioner
Central Excise Act
Of Central
Excise
43. CEA 00001/2013 M/S. Agrawal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 13-03-2020
Colour Advance
Photo System VS
Commissioner
Of Central
Excise
44. MP 06579/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 30-04-2020
VS R.S.P. Gupta YADAV

45. MP 06578/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 13-03-2020

VS Rajesh YADAV
Kumar Kashiv
46. MP 06564/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 13-03-2020
VS Ramesh R YADAV
Rahate
47. MP 06561/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 13-03-2020
VS Shri Om YADAV
Narayan Khare
Any scheme or the policy, in relation to service, providing
48. MP 06535/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 13-03-2020 progression has an element of upgradation, which barring
VS J.K. Nayak YADAV few exceptions, is distinct from promotion. While
49. MP 06531/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 13-03-2020 promotion involves advancement in rank, grade or both
VS Shri R.K. YADAV and is always a step towards advancement to higher
Vidyarthi position, grade or honour, upgradation does not involve
50. MP 06530/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 13-03-2020 promotion to a higher position and the pedestal of the
VS P.L. Mishra YADAV employee remains the same.

51. MP 06504/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 30-04-2020

VS Girish Kumar YADAV
Dixit
52. MP 06503/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 30-04-2020
VS B.P. Singhore YADAV
53. MP 06502/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 30-04-2020
VS Santosh YADAV
Kumar Chouksey
54. MP 06500/2019 Union Of India HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 30-04-2020
VS B.R.K. Lyer YADAV
55. MP 04671/2018 Manish Tiwari HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 08-05-2020 Order XXI Rule 65 of CPC – it is mandatory to make
VS Deepak DWIVEDI declaration in regard to the highest bidder as purchaser at
Chotrani the sale by an officer of the court and such declaration has
to be made with the leave of the Court
56. WP 06095/2020 Smt. Meena Devi HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 08-05-2020 The Circular issued in clarificatory manner, would have
VS The State Of DWIVEDI retrospective effect
Madhya Pradesh
57. FA 00615/2018 T.P.G. Pillay VS HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 08-05-2020 Suit for specific performance of contract- readiness and
Mohammad DWIVEDI willingness
Jamir Khan
58. FA 00279/2017 M/S Shubhalaya HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 15-05-2020 Order VII Rule 11
Villa VS DWIVEDI Rejection of Plaint
Vishandas
Parwani
59. EP 00007/2019 Ram Kishan HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. K. 13-07-2020 Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with section 86 of
Patel VS SHRIVASTAVA “Representation of the People Act, 1951”
Devendra Singh
60. MCRC 16197/2020 Manoj Yadav VS HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 15-07-2020 Magistrate can not exercise the power to grant bail under
The State Of DWIVEDI Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C. in case it is alleged that the
Madhya Pradesh accused is in illegal detention.
61. WP 08575/2020 Jai Maa Kaila
Devi Infrahight
Pvt. Ltd VS State
Of Madhya
Pradesh Thr. Its
Additional Chief
Secretary/
Principal
Secretary
62. WP 08365/2020 Ashok Rai VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
63. WP 08363/2020 Rajendra Rai VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
64. WP 08260/2020 Nilesh Rathor VS
State Of Madhya HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Excise Policy 2020-21
Pradesh 22-07-2020
65. WP 08259/2020 Aman Jaiswal VS
State Of M.P.
66. WP 08160/2020 Angrezy Deshi
Karkeli Samouh
Proprietor VS
State Of M.P.
67. WP 08159/2020 Vaishali Shivhare
VS State Of
Madhya Pradesh
68. WP 08153/2020 Shiva Pandey VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
69. WP 08139/2020 M/S Awadh
Associates VS
The State Of M.P.
70. WP 08137/2020 Adarsh Kumar
Singh VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
71. WP 08131/2020 Danbahadur
Singh VS State
Of Madhya
Pradesh
72. WP 08084/2020 Brijesh Kumar
Pandey VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
73. WP 08016/2020 M/S Raghav
Sarkar And
Associates VS
The State Of M.P. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Excise Policy 2020-21
74. WP 07918/2020 Pankaj Kumar 22-07-2020
Singh VS State
Of Madhya
Pradesh
75. WP 07867/2020 Ashish Jaiswal
VS State Of
Madhya Pradesh
Thr. Principal
Secretary
76. WP 07815/2020 M/S Mahismati
And Co. VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
77. WP 07812/2020 Ajay Shivhare
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
78. WP 07811/2020 Ajay Yadav VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
79. WP 07810/2020 Arti Shivhare VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
80. WP 07808/2020 M/S Shri Ganga
Group VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
81. WP 07805/2020 M/S Mandla
Syndicate VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
82. WP 07804/2020 M/S Mahismati
And Co. VS The HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Excise Policy 2020-21
State Of Madhya 22-07-2020
Pradesh
83. WP 07771/2020 Rsks Reality Pvt
Limited VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
84. WP 07767/2020 Vino Trading
Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its
Director Kishore
Kushwaha VS
State Of Mp
85. WP 07764/2020 M/S Malwa
Wines India VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
86. WP 07738/2020 Mahakali Traders
A Partnership Firm
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
87. WP 07578/2020 Lakhan Jaiswal VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh

88. WP 07577/2020 Rajesh Singh

Thakur VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
89. WP 07576/2020 Rajesh Singh
Thakur VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
90. WP 07567/2020 Manish Rai VS Excise Policy 2020-21
Commercial Tax 22-07-2020
Deartemt
91. WP 07520/2020 Gopal Associates
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
92. WP 07490/2020 M/S Pandey
Associates VS
State Of Mp
93. WP 07474/2020 Ashish Jaiswal VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
94. WP 07473/2020 Sangam
Enterprises A
Partnership Firm
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
95. WP 07472/2020 M/S. Tika Ram
Kori And Co. VS
The State Of
M.P.

96. WP 07389/2020 M/S Gwalior

Wines (Limited
Liability
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Partnership) VS Excise Policy 2020-21
22-07-2020
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
97. WP 07373/2020 Maa Vishno
Enterprisee
Through Its
Partner Shri
Ashish Shivhar
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
 98. EP 00014/2019 Radhe Shyam HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. K. 22-07-2020 Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with section 86(1) of
Darsima VS SHRIVASTAVA “Representation of the People Act, 1951”
Kunwar Vijay
Shah
99. MCRC 38669/2019 Vinod HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. K. 04-08-2020 Section 340 r/w 195 of Cr.P.C
Raghuvanshi VS SHRIVASTAVA
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
100. WP 21426/2012 Duryodhan HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 07-08-2020 M.P.C.S. (CCA & Pension) Rules, 1966- Rule 9(2)(a)
Bhavtekar VS PAUL & Departmental Enquiry
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
101. WP 27106/2018 Virendra Jatav HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 20-08-2020 Acquittal of selected candidate from criminal case does
VS The State Of PAUL not give him any indefeasible right of appointment. The
Madhya Pradesh employer/ Scrutiny Committee can examine the nature of
accusation

102. MCC 00062/2020 Smt. Aarti Sahu HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 04-09-2020 If short dates are given to the parties, no malice can be
VS Ankit Sahu PAUL attributed on the Court.
Presiding Officer is the guardian of the judicial time and
has complete discretion to fix the dates of hearing.
103. WP 09930/2020 Wakil Ahmad
Ansari VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
104. WP 09344/2020 Ashutosh
Bundela VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
105. WP 06087/2020 Bhole Baba
Stone Crusher
VS The State Of
M.P.
106. WP 05412/2020 Jai Kumar VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules 1996
21-09-2020
107. WP 05243/2020 Avdhendra
Pratap Singh VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
108. WP 03046/2020 Smt.Preeti Yadav
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
109. WP 03045/2020 Smt. Preeti
Yadav VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh

110. WP 03044/2020 Akhilesh Kumar

Dangi VS The
State Of M.P.
111. WP 02734/2020 Satendra Singh
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
112. WP 02628/2020 Rajkumari Singh
Tomar VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
113. WP 02626/2020 Rajkumari Yadav
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
114. WP 02625/2020 Rajkumari Tomar
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
115. WP 02623/2020 Divyarth Singh
Rathore VS State
Of Madhya HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules 1996
21-09-2020
Pradesh
116. WP 02620/2020 Siddharth Singh
Rathore VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
117. WP 02444/2020 M/S Sohni Stone
Crushers VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
118. WP 02160/2020 Pushpendra Pratap
Singh VS The State
Of Madhya Pradesh
119. WP 02144/2020 Smt. Priyanka
Dhameniya VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
120. WP 02143/2020 Smt. Pooja
Sharma VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
121. WP 02141/2020 Smt. Uma
Adiwasi VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
122. WP 02138/2020 Smt. Prabha
Singariya VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
123. WP 01862/2020 Arjun Nirman
Infrastructure
Private Limited
VS Union Of HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules 1996
21-09-2020
India
124. WP 01746/2020 Abhilekh Singh
Solanki VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
125. WP 01744/2020 Mathura Prasad
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
126. WP 01739/2020 Veerendra Singh
Solanki VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
127. WP 01670/2020 Gayatri Singh
Tomar VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
128. WP 01667/2020 Ram Pratap
Singh Tomar VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
129. WP 01665/2020 Krishna Pratap
Singh Tomar VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
130. WP 01010/2020 M/S Jindal
Earthmines VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
131. WP 01006/2020 Pranav Maloo
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules 1996
132. WP 01005/2020 Devendra 21-09-2020
Chaturvedi VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
133. WP 00954/2020 Abdul Salam VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
134. WP 00948/2020 Abdul Salam VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
135. WP 00945/2020 Mustafa VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
136. WP 00703/2020 Abdul Kalam VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
137. WP 00690/2020 Abdul Kalam VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
138. WP 00129/2020 M/S Maa
Bhavani Granite
A Firm VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
139. WP 27530/2019 Abhilash Singh
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
140. WP 27378/2019 Hemlata Solanki
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
141. WP 27371/2019 Hemlata Solanki
VS The State Of HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules 1996
21-09-2020
Madhya Pradesh
142. WP 26589/2019 Ajay Tripathi VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
143. WP 26097/2019 Adil Khan VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh

144. WP 26091/2019 Bheemram

Nakhate VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
145. WP 25932/2019 Jayant Kumar
Jhawar VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
146. WP 25704/2019 M/S Shambhvi
Associates VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
147. WP 25365/2019 Trinity
Infrastructure VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
148. WP 24870/2019 Shailesh
Nagayach VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
149. WP 24869/2019 Mohd. Saikun VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
150. WP 19313/2019 Sanjay
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules 1996
Chourasiya VS 21-09-2020
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
151. WP 18776/2019 Om Kumar Mahto
VS The State Of
M.P
152. WP 18737/2019 Abhishek Singh
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
153. WP 10711/2019 M/S Trinity
Infrastructur VS
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
154. WP 25364/2019 Trinity
Infrastructure VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
155. WP 27734/2019 Shri Kavindra HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL 21-09-2020 Quashment of F.I.R
Kiyawat VS The SINGH AHLUWALIA
State Of Madhya
Pradesh Thr.
Special Police
Department (Lok
Ayukta)
156. CRA 10870/2019 Shakuntala HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAGDISH 23-09-2020 Suspension of conviction
Khatik VS The PRASAD GUPTA
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
157. WP 08063/2020 Deendayal HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 25-09-2020 Clause 16 of the M.P. Public Distribution System
Prathmik DWIVEDI (Control) Order, 2015
Shahkari
Upbhokta
Bhandar Hata VS
The State Of
Madhya Pradesh

158. WP 14532/2020 Shri Ashok HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV 20-10-2020 Advocate of the petitioner of any petition is not aggrieved
Lalwani VS High KUMAR DUBEY party so he has no locus standi to file a Writ Petition in
Court Of Madhya person
Pradesh
159. CRR 01800/2020 Vikas VS The HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY 22-10-2020 Bail cannot be claimed by a juvenile as a matter of right
State Of Madhya DWIVEDI
Pradesh
160. MP 02861/2020 Beyond Malls HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 04-11-2020 Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Llp VS Lifestyle PAUL Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015
International
Private Ltd.
161. MP 02560/2020 Union Bank Of HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 07-11-2020 Labour/Service Law & Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
India VS Shri PAUL
Vinod Kumar
Dwivedi
162. MCRC 43474/2020 Aniruddh HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL 24-11-2020 Judicial Magistrate cannot alter or modify the conditions
Khehuriya VS DHAGAT of bail . It can be modified or altered by Sessions or High
The State Of Court under Section 439(1)(b) of CRPC
Madhya Pradesh
163. MCRC 45501/2020 Arif Masood VS HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 27-11-2020 Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Anticipatory
The State Of PAUL bail
Madhya Pradesh
164. WPS 12216/2004 A.A.Abraham HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 03-12-2020 Rule 15 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and
VS The State Of PAUL Appeal) Rules, 1966 & Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Service
M.P. And Ors. (Pension) Rules, 1976
165. WP 05450/2013 Smt. G. Usha HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL 05-12-2020 Revenue Officer verifying caste certificate issued by
Rajsekhar VS DHAGAT Competent Authority as per office records is not doing
Government Of enquiry for deciding claim in respect of caste certificate.
India Said investigation or verification is not required to be done
by Scrutiny Committee.
166. CRA 05610/2019 Raju @ Surendra HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 08-12-2020 The conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of a
Nath Sonkar VS PAUL credible statement of police officer
The State Of &
Madhya Pradesh Section 50 of NDPS Act
167. WP 03518/2014 Raja Bhau HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 16-12-2020 Service Law,
Gulabrao Jagtap PAUL Regularization of service
VS The State Of
Madhya Pradesh
168. WP 00821/2014 Arun Narayan HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 16-12-2020
Hiwase VS PAUL
Secretary Dept. Of
Agriculture The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
169. CRR 02179/2020 Aruni Sahgal VS HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL 17-12-2020 Order granting interim custody of vehicle under Section
The State Of DHAGAT 451 or under Section 457(1) of Code of Criminal
Madhya Pradesh Procedure is interlocutory order and criminal revision is
170. CRR 02078/2020 Dheerendra HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL 17-12-2020 not maintainable against it.
Dwivedi @ DHAGAT
Dheeru VS The
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
171. RP 01076/2019 Rajasthan Patrika HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 18-12-2020 Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees
Pvt. Ltd. VS The PAUL (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
State Of Madhya 1955
Pradesh
172. RP 01077/2019 Rajasthan Patrika HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 18-12-2020 Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees
Pvt. Ltd. VS The PAUL (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
State Of Madhya 1955
Pradesh

173. WP 18878/2020 Rajendra Singh HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL 24-12-2020 Police Officer shall enter complaint in General Diary as
Pawar VS The DHAGAT per M. P. Police Regulation 634.
State Of Madhya
Pradesh
174. WP 08963/2020 Sasan Power VS HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY 31-12-2020 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act,
Madhya Pradesh PAUL 2006-Section 17 and 18-
Micro And Small
Enterprise
Facilitation
Council