Madhya Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 16 To May 22, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX State Of Madhya Pradesh V Satya Narayan Dubey 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 147 Vijay Mahobia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 148 Dharmadas Tirthdas Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of India and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 149 Himanshudhar Dwivedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 150 Bablesh Patel v. The state of Madhya Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 151 M/s Rajdhani Security Force Pvt. Ltd Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 152 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK 'Public Interest Also An Element On Consideration Of Which Employee Can Be Placed Under Suspension': Madhya Pradesh High Court Case Title: State Of Madhya Pradesh V Satya Narayan Dubey Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 147 The High Court observed that public interest is also an element on the consideration of which an employee can be placed under suspension. The Court further held that even if it is alleged that the particular department of the employee did not suffer any loss due to him, the same cannot make him immune to suspension. The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal observed- …it cannot be forgotten that if the respondent, a senior officer is reinstated by staying the suspension order, he can scuttle the inquiry or investigation or can win over the witnesses of the departmental inquiry. This is within the province of the disciplinary authority to decide whether an employee is required to be suspended or not because suspension is a step towards ultimate result of an investigation or inquiry. Scope Of Article 300A Of Constitution Of India Isn't For Invoking It Against Any Action Of An Individual: Madhya Pradesh High Courtv Case title - Vijay Mahobia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh [WP No. 10187 of 2022] Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 148 The High Court has observed that Article 300A of the Constitution of India acts as a protector of individual interest and a tool for the state for infrastructural and various other development. The Court also stressed its scope is limited to the state's action. The Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke further observed that the article maintains a balance between the interest of property owners and the interest of the state. "The Article says that- No person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. This means that nobody can be deprived of his right over property except if it is prescribed by law. This article emphasizes on the doctrine of eminent domain which means that the state can take over any private land if it is for public use. Therefore, the law prescribing the acquisition needs to be valid and the acquisition of the land by the state must be for a public purpose," the Court remarked. A Party Cannot Directly Seek The Appointment Of The Arbitrator If The Agreement Provides For Pre-Arbitration Reference To A Competent Authority: Madhya Pradesh High Court Case Title: Dharmadas Tirthdas Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of India and Ors., MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1043 of 2003. Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 149 The High Court has held that the court cannot appoint the arbitrator when the petitioner has not complied with the condition precedent of referring the dispute to the Superintending Engineer. The Single Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia has held the pre-arbitral steps to be mandatory, the non-compliance of which will result in the rejection of the application for the appointment of the arbitrator. Trial Court Must Give Opportunity Of Hearing To IO Before Ordering Action For Allegedly Botched Up Investigation: Madhya Pradesh High Court Case Title: Himanshudhar Dwivedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 150 The High Court set aside the order passed by the trial court, directing the Superintendent of Police to take action against the Investigating Officer for an allegedly botched up investigation, observing that he was not given an opportunity by the lower court to explain his position. Quashing the impugned order, Justice Atul Sreedharan observed- Under the circumstances, the impugned order itself is violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his position either before the learned trial court when he was being examined as a witness to the prosecution, where this court could have put questions and elicited answers to suggestions of a deliberately botched up investigation. Therefore, the petition succeeds and the impugned order/letter dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure A/3) addressed by the learned trial court to the Superintendent of Police, Panna, is quashed. False Rape Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Says Prosecutrix Must Be Asked To Refund Compensation Paid By State Case Title: Bablesh Patel v. The state of Madhya Pradesh Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 151 The High Court directed the trial court to issue direction against the...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 16 To May 22, 2022

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags