Madhya Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: November 10 - November 16, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 241 to 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 247

Nominal Index

• Shankar Prasad Gupta v Lovkesh Singh 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 241
• Ramaavatar v Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 242
• MPPSC v Anand Yadav 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 243
• Vivek v State 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 244
• Branch Manager, United Insurance v Maneesh Kumar Singrore 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 245
• Badam Batham v Dinesh 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 246
• New Insurance Company v Sukraniya 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 247

Filing ₹250 Security Deposit On Same Day As Presentation Of Revision Plea Suffices Municipality (Election Petition) Rules: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the security deposit of ₹250 required under Rule 19 (2) of the MP Municipality Election Petition Rules can be filed on the same day as the presentation of a revision at the filing window. In doing so, the court clarified that this would be sufficient compliance with Rule 19 and would not lead to the dismissal of the revision.

Case Title: Shankar Prasad Gupta v Lovkesh Singh [2025:MPHC-JBP:52815]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 241

Railways Liable Even For Deaths Caused While Unauthorizedly Crossing Tracks If It Failed To Implement Preventive Measures: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (November 10) held that the Railways is liable to pay compensation even in deaths caused while unauthorized track crossing, if the Railways had failed to implement sufficient measures to prevent such unauthorized access to tracks.

In the present case, the bench noted that the deceased Rajesh, who was 3 years old, came onto the Railway tracks and to save him, two females also came onto the track and all three were run over by the train.

Case Title: Ramaavatar v Union of India [MA-655-2017]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 242

MP High Court Sets Aside Single Bench Order Altering MPPSC Answer Key; Says Courts Must Not Supplant Expert Opinion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of the Single Bench, which set aside the opinion of the expert committee appointed by the State to assess the disputed questions in the MPPSC (MP Public Service Commission) State Service Preliminary Examination conducted in December 2023.

In doing so, the division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed that the courts must refrain from examining the opinion of the expert body formed by the examiner and accept their opinion.

Case Title: MPPSC v Anand Yadav [WA 1232 of 2024]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 243

Presence Of Injury Not Essential To Attract Offence Of Attempt To Murder: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Tuesday (November 11), held that the presence of injury is not an essential ingredient for making out an offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code/ Section 109(1) of BNS.

The court further clarified that any action is done with an intention or knowledge that this action would cause death, then the assailant would be guilty of attempt to murder.

Case Title: Vivek v State [CRR-4878-2025]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 244

Negligently Allowing Minor To Drive Without Valid License Is Breach Of Insurance Policy: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an owner negligently allowing or permitting a minor to drive the motor vehicle without a valid driving license leads to a fundamental breach of the insurance policy.

In doing so, the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi emphasized that it is the solemn duty of the elders to ensure that the minors are restrained from venturing into paths not yet meant for their age, particularly the act of driving a vehicle, which demands both maturity and lawful permission.

Case Title: Branch Manager, United Insurance v Maneesh Kumar Singrore [MA 376 of 2007]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 245

Estranged Husband Entitled To Compensation Towards Loss Of Consortium Upon Wife's Death In Road Accident: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted compensation towards loss of consortium to a man, for the death of his wife, despite the fact that the couple had been living separately.

The court, citing the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd v Satinder Kaur [(2021) 11 SCC 780], reiterated that the principle of consortium applies to spousal, parental and filial consortium and applies even in cases where the relationship was subsisting only legally.

Case Title: Badam Batham v Dinesh [MA-806-2022]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 246

Registered Cranes, Excavators Are 'Motor Vehicle' If Road Use Permitted, Insurer Liable Even If Accident Occurs In Mine: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that earth moving machines like road rollers, excavators, or cranes, if duly registered with the Transport Department under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and have permission for normal road use, qualify the definition of 'motor vehicle'.

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi further held that such machines will then make the insurance company liable for accidents caused, irrespective of the fact whether the accident occurred on the road or in an enclosed space like mine.

Case Title: New Insurance Company v Sukraniya [MA 3597 of 2024]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 247