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

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 12(1)(c)—Annulment of marriage—Allegation of fraud in consent—Misrepresentation of educational qualification—Scope of "fraud" under Section 12(1)(c)—Consent to marry—Whether vitiated by misrepresentation about technical qualification—Reiterated, fraud under Section 12(1)(c) must relate to the nature of the ceremony or material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent that induced the marriage—General misrepresentation not sufficient unless it affects real consent—Allegations of fraud not proved—Trial Court rightly dismissed petition—Appeal dismissed—The appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking annulment of marriage on the ground that his consent was obtained by fr...

Dismissed
(2) MADHYA PRADESH
Dissolution of marriage, Interpretation of Statute

A. Family Courts Act, 1984—Section 19—Appeal against Decree of Divorce—Death of Respondent During Pendency—An appeal filed against a deceased person is not maintainable—Where the respondent in a matrimonial appeal dies during pendency, the appellant must take steps to bring on record the legal representatives—Failure to do so renders the appeal incompetent—Applications under Order 22 Rule 4(4) and Rule 4(A) CPC cannot cure this defect without proper substitution. (Paras 8, 12, 13) B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13—Effect of Death After Divorce Decree—Cause of action for dissolution of marriage is purely personal and extinguishes with the death of a party—While proprietary or estate-related claims may survive against the estate through legal representatives, the divo...

Appeal dismissed
(3) MADHYA PRADESH

A. Administrative Law—Delegation of Powers—Compulsory Retirement—Withdrawal—Approval by State Government of compulsory retirement order does not confer a vested right on the retiree; the Board of Directors may withdraw the order without requiring further concurrence from the State, where the governing statute does not mandate such approval for rescission. B. Disciplinary Proceedings—Charge Sheet—Issuance Authority—A charge sheet issued by a controlling authority, even if not the appointing or disciplinary authority, is valid provided there are no specific rules forbidding it and the competent authority ultimately decides on the penalty. C. Disciplinary Proceedings—Penalty Order—Approval—A penalty order signed by a delegate is valid when the competent administrative authorit...

Dismissed
(4) MADHYA PRADESH
Jurisdiction, Service Law

A. M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966—Rule 9(2)(a)—Deemed Suspension—Arrest and detention exceeding 48 hours—Petitioner detained for over three months in a criminal case involving moral turpitude—Held, deemed suspension takes effect automatically from the date of arrest by operation of law, irrespective of whether a formal suspension order was passed by the appointing authority. (Paras —) B. Administrative Law—Lack of Jurisdiction—Consequential justice—Where an order passed without jurisdiction results in doing justice, the court may refrain from interfering if quashing the order would revive or perpetuate illegality—Doctrine of balancing equities invoked. (Paras —) C. M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19...

(5) MADHYA PRADESH
Rejection of plaint, Partition Suit

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 7 Rule 11—Rejection of Plaint—Partition Suit—Improper Dismissal—Appeal Allowed—An appeal under Section 96 CPC was filed against the trial court’s order allowing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissing a partition suit at the threshold—The High Court found that the trial court erred in prematurely rejecting the plaint—(Point A) Under Order 7 Rule 11(f), rejection on grounds of territorial jurisdiction was held improper where part of the cause of action and residence of some defendants fell within the court’s jurisdiction—The High Court reiterated that objections to jurisdiction must be raised promptly and not entertained belatedly unless they result in a failure of justice—(Point B) Allegations regarding insu...

(6) MADHYA PRADESH
Service Law

Service Law—Compulsory Retirement—Absence from Duty—Enquiry Dispensed—Retiral Benefits—An employee was compulsorily retired under Rule 30(ii) of the B.H.E.L. CDA Rules, 1975, after prolonged unauthorized absence and discovery that he had taken up employment elsewhere without intimation—The employer dispensed with a departmental enquiry citing the employee’s untraceable status, which the Court upheld, noting that enquiry was not reasonably practicable (Paras 19, 21). The Court rejected the employee's claim of suffering from chronic depression, holding that his active employment elsewhere and treatment of patients demonstrated willful abandonment of service rather than incapacity (Paras 17, 24). Further, the Court clarified that disciplinary action under Rule 25(1) can proceed independently o...

Dismissed
(7) MADHYA PRADESH

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 14—This petition challenging the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for the posts of Hospital Manager, Assistant Hospital Manager, and Deputy Registrar at Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, the Court held that the petitioner was wrongfully disqualified—The petitioner possessed an MBA in Hospital Management from a recognized State University, fulfilling the advertisement’s qualification criteria—The respondent’s rejection on grounds that the petitioner’s degree did not explicitly mention "Hospital Administration" in brackets and ignoring the mark sheets was held to be arbitrary and illegal—The Court also found the respondents’ subsequent claim of petitioner’s overage and non-acceptance of his OBC digital certificate as malafid...

Disposed of
(8) MADHYA PRADESH
Writ petition, Eligibility

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ Petition—The petitioner challenged the selection process for posts in the hospital management cadre at an autonomous medical college, alleging he was unfairly excluded from the interview despite being eligible—The petitioner contended that more than the prescribed number of candidates who did not submit documents timely were allowed to participate, thereby depriving him of the chance to be interviewed—The respondents countered that candidates were shortlisted based on merit and pro-rata marks after proper scrutiny, and the petitioner did not secure a place among the top candidates required for interviews—The court examined the merit lists and found the petitioner ranked significantly lower than the top candidates called for interviews across all three posts&m...

(9) MADHYA PRADESH
Murder

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 154—Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder—Circumstantial Evidence and Chain of Circumstances—FIR and Evidence—Postmortem—Electronic Evidence—Examination of Accused—In this murder case under Section 302 IPC, the conviction was upheld based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, recovered articles (electric wire, sleeping pills), and witness testimonies—The Court emphasized that the chain must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, rejecting alternate hypotheses—Minor discrepancies in investigation and alleged lapses in the postmortem report, including duration of death and lack of chemical examination, were examined but found insufficient to vitiate the case—Expert testimony and cross...

(10) MADHYA PRADESH
Attempt to murder, Framing of charge

Penal Code, 1860—Section 307—This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC (now Sections 438/442 of BNSS, 2023), the applicants challenged the framing of charges under Sections 307 and 307/149 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District Panna—The charges arose from an incident where the applicants, allegedly armed with iron rods and lathis, formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted Pradeep Patel, his father Badri Patel, and other family members, including forcibly entering their home—The applicants contended that injuries were simple and not grievous, thus Section 307 IPC was wrongly invoked—The Court, relying on precedents including S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra (2023) and State of M.P. v. Kanha (2019), held that for invoking Section 307 IPC, grievous injury is not mandatory—what ma...

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.