slcdailylaw
  • Home
  • Topic Search
  • Advanced Search
  • Citation Search
  • Bookmarks
  • Login
  1. Home
  2. Latest Cases
(1) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
Compensation

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—S. 173(1)—Compensation—Enhancement—Death of injured claimant during pendency of appeal for reasons unrelated to accident—Survival of cause of action—Loss of estate—Assessment of income and future prospects—Just and reasonable compensation—Held, when an injured claimant dies during the pendency of an appeal for enhancement of compensation due to causes unconnected with the motor accident, the claim insofar as it relates to personal injuries abates; however, the cause of action for loss to the estate survives to the legal representatives—Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon and others (Paras 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16), it is held that the legal heirs are entitled to pursue pecuniary claims forming part ...

(2) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Or. 6 R. 17; Or. 43 R. 1(u)—Specific Relief Act, 1963—S. 34 (Proviso)—Amendment of pleadings at appellate stage—Remand—Limitation and acquiescence—Held, an amendment of pleadings under Or. 6 R. 17 CPC cannot be permitted at the appellate stage to introduce facts which were already within the knowledge of the plaintiff long prior to the institution of the suit, nor can such amendment be allowed to fill lacunae in the pleadings or to revive claims barred by limitation—Where the plaintiff was aware of the partition as early as 2004, the agreement in 2009 and the registered sale deed and possession of the defendant in 2018, but instituted the suit only in 2019, permitting an amendment seeking to introduce facts relating to possession and alienation and remanding the...

(3) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

CrPC, 1973—Section 197 (BNSS, 2023—Section 218)—Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servant—Custodial Violence—Illegal Detention—Abuse of Police Authority—Scope of “Official Duty”—Magistrate’s Power to Recall Summoning Order—Held: Protection under Section 197 CrPC is not available where the act alleged has no reasonable nexus with discharge of official duty—Assault, custodial violence, illegal detention, abuse, and humiliation inflicted inside the police station do not constitute acts done in the discharge of official duty—Police officers cannot claim sanction protection for acts that are per se illegal and outside the scope of their lawful authority—At the stage of cognizance, sanction is not required; the question of nexus, if any, is a matter of ev...

(4) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

Constitution of India—Arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 19(6), 226, 245(1), 246(3)—Legislative Competence—Constitutional Validity—Reasonable Classification—Gwalior Vyapar Mela Pradhikaran Adhiniyam, 1996—Section 6—Allotment of Stalls in Trade Fair—Held: A plenary legislation can be invalidated only for (i) lack of legislative competence, or (ii) violation of Part III or other constitutional mandates; the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness applies sparingly—Presumption of constitutionality is strong, and the burden lies heavily on the challenger to establish a clear, unequivocal constitutional infraction—The Madhya Pradesh Legislature was competent to enact the 1996 Adhiniyam under Art. 245(1) read with Art. 246(3) and List II Entry 28 (“Markets and Fairs”). Section 6, which merely ...

(5) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 528—Inherent Powers—Quashing of FIR on Compromise—Honey-Trap Conspiracy—Serious Offences—Public Interest—The High Court declined to quash an FIR under Sections 308(2), 308(5), 308(7) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) despite a verified compromise between the parties—The allegations disclosed a deliberate “honey-trap” conspiracy intended to blackmail, extort, and threaten the victim with false implication in a rape case—Such conduct has a serious societal impact and cannot be treated as a private dispute capable of resolution through compromise—Quashing the FIR in these circumstances would offend public interest, violate principles of natural justice, and run contrary to binding Supreme Court precedent. (Par...

Dismissed
(6) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—First Appeal—Section 96—Duty of First Appellate Court—Order 41 Rule 27—Undue Influence—Dastbardari (Relinquishment)—Spes Successionis—Estoppel—Evidence Act—Reconstruction of Record—A first appeal under Section 96 CPC is a valuable statutory right requiring the Appellate Court to rehear the entire matter on facts and law, consciously re-appreciate evidence, and render reasoned findings on all issues—Affirmance of the Trial Court needs less elaborate reasoning, but reversal demands careful engagement with and rebuttal of the Trial Court’s reasoning—The First Appellate Court functions as the final court of facts. (Paras 31–33) Under Order 41 Rules 27 & 28, additional evidence may be permitted where necessary for a just ...

(7) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 226, 14 and 16—Public Employment—Recruitment—Reduction of Advertised Posts—Validity—Challenge was raised to the reduction of Assistant Engineer (Civil) posts from 302 to 289 after the preliminary and mains examinations had been held under the State Engineering Service Examination, 2014—Held, the number of posts advertised was expressly subject to revision under Clause 6(i) of the advertisement—The reduction became necessary as the initial advertisement notified 52 posts, whereas only 39 posts had been sanctioned/approved by the Finance Department—The Department cannot make appointments in excess of the sanctioned strength or without financial approval—Reduction of 13 backlog posts (including 7 OBC posts) was therefore justified and did not ...

Disposed of
(8) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976—Family Pension—Entitlement of Son—Interpretation of Statutes—Marriage as Condition of Ineligibility—Arrears and Interest—Under Rule 47(6)(ii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, a son of a deceased government servant is entitled to family pension until attaining 25 years of age or until he starts earning a livelihood, whichever is earlier—The Rule imposes no requirement that the son must remain unmarried—The Explanation (b) to Rule 47(6) explicitly applies the marriage-based ineligibility condition only to a daughter, not to a son—Although the definition of “family” under Rule 47(14)(b)(ii) employs the phrase “his/her marriage”, this language is ambiguous and must be read harmoniously with the substantive p...

(9) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

A. Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956—Section 307(5)—Unauthorized Construction—Demolition Proceedings—Application filed seeking demolition of a structure alleged to be illegally constructed—Respondents asserted that only repair work had been undertaken—High Court, relying on the Municipal Commissioner’s inspection report showing the structure to be 7–8 years old and constructed without any building permission, held that the claim of mere repairs was untenable—Respondents’ refusal to consent to scientific testing of the structure’s age strengthened the inference of new construction—Order of Trial Court dismissing the application was set aside and demolition sought under Section 307(5) was allowed. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19, 21, 22) B. Civil Procedure C...

(10) MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
Rape

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Quashing of FIR and Proceedings—High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law or secure ends of justice, particularly where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence. (Paras 1, 24) B. Penal Code, 1860—Section 376—Consent and Promise of Marriage—Consent obtained in a prolonged consensual physical relationship does not automatically vitiate under Section 90 IPC merely because a promise of marriage was later not fulfilled—To constitute rape, it must be shown that the promise was mala fide from inception and the sole reason for consent. (Paras 5, 7, 10, 15, 17, 19, 23, 28) C. Penal Code, 1860—Section 376—Vitiated C...

slcdailylaw

Tomar Publication

561, Sec-2, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut-250004

0121 3561932, +91 9458 5523 61

tomarpublication999@gmail.com

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© SLC Daily law all right reserved.