Madhya Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: October 6 - October 12, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 210 to 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 218Nominal IndexManoj Kumar Ahuja v Gurmej Singh 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 210Sandeep Singh Parihar v State of MP 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 211Ashish Jain v State of MP 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 212Rohit Pathak v Bar Council of India 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 213Babita Mor v Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 214M/s APS Enterprises v State of MP 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 215X v State of MP 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 216Ramesh Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 217Mohammed Taiyab v State of MP 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 218MP High Court Upholds Order Rejecting Specific Performance Suit Noting That Plaintiff Was Never 'Ready & Willing' To Perform His PartThe Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a trial court order which dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance with respect to sale of a property after finding that he was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract with respect to purchasing the property.Case Title: Manoj Kumar Ahuja v Gurmej Singh (F.A. No. 130 of 2002)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 210MP High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Eating Sambar Deer, Says No Link Between Him & Meat Recovered From SpotGranting bail to a man accused of cooking and eating the meat of Sambar deer in the PWD guesthouse at Nagod, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the forest officials failed to establish a link between the applicant with the recovered meat as the FSL report was still awaited.Case Title: Sandeep Singh Parihar v State of MP (MCRC-40989-2025)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 211'Prima Facie' Observation By Magistrate While Directing Registration Of FIR Under Section 156(3) CrPC Not Cognizance: MP High CourtThe Madhya Pradesh High Court has said that a prima facie observation made by the Magistrate that a cognizable offence is made out while directing registration of an FIR on a private complaint under Section 156(3) would not amount to taking cognizance of the offence.Case Title: Ashish Jain v State of MP (MCRC-55135-2024)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 212How Can You Demand Fee For Transferring Lawyer's Enrolment When Advocates Act Bars It? MP High Court To State Bar CouncilThe Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (October 7) orally questioned the State Bar Council for demanding fee from an advocate for transferring his enrolment to the state when the Advocates Act bars such fee demand.Case Title: Rohit Pathak v Bar Council of India (WP-35160-2025)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 213MP High Court Orders Release Of Gratuity To Widow Of Bank Employee Terminated For Misappropriating Money, Says No Forfeiture Sans ConvictionThe Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Monday (October 6), ordered the release of gratuity to the widow of a bank employee who was terminated for misappropriating ₹1 lakh from the branch cash chest, noting that since there was no criminal prosecution, the bank cannot forfeit gratuity.Case Title: Babita Mor v Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank (WP 21393 of 2021)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 214MP High Court Directs Factory Owner To Plant 25 Saplings For Failing To Cure Defects In Plea Despite Grant Of Sufficient TimeThe Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the proprietor of a factory to plant 25 saplings of native plants/trees within the factory premises as a condition for restoring its writ petition, which was earlier dismissed for non-compliance with a peremptory order.Case Title: M/s APS Enterprises v State of MP [MCC-2653-2025]Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 215'Revengeful & Vulgar': MP High Court Upholds Expulsion Of School Student For Posting Derogatory, Abusive Content About Teacher OnlineThe Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Thursday (October 9) dismissed a father's plea challenging school's decision to expel his child following the discovery of an Instagram page where the boy created and posted memes of teachers using abusive and derogatory language.Case Title: X v State of MP [WP-22258-2025]Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 216Collector Can't Reopen Land Ownership After Decades Without Inquiry: Madhya Pradesh High CourtThe Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that in the absence of a specific limitation period under Section 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959, the mutation and ownership records cannot be reopened after decades under the guise of revisional power, that too without conducting any full-fledged enquiry.Case Title: Ramesh Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh [MP-5747-2022]Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 217'Right To Practice Religion Has No Nexus With Particular Place': MP High Court Rejects Plea To Rebuild Ujjain's Takiya MasjidDismissing a plea seeking reconstruction of Ujjain's Takiya Masjid by litigants who used to offer namaaz there, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that right to practice religion has no nexus with a particular place and this right is not infringed by acquisition of a land having a mosque.The high court referred to Allahabad High Court's decision in Mohammad Ali Khan v Special Land Acquisition Office (1978) which had held...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: October 6 - October 12, 2025

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags