//
archives

high court of madhya pradesh

This tag is associated with 4 posts

Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act of 2007=whether the appellant could be tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC notwithstanding the fact that the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as amended by Code of Criminal Procedure (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act of 2007, made offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code triable only by the Court of Sessions. ?- A Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Re: Amendment of First Schedule of Criminal Procedure Code by Criminal Procedure Code (M. P. Amendment) Act, 2007 2008 (3) MPLJ 311, answered the reference and held that all cases pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class as on 22nd February, 2008 remained unaffected by the amendment and were triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class as the Amendment Act did not contain a clear indication that such cases also have to be made over to the Court of Sessions. The Court further held that all such cases as were pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and had been committed to the Sessions Court shall be sent back to the Judicial Magistrate First Class in accordance with law. The reference was answered accordingly. = whether to a pending prosecution the provisions of the amended Code have become applicable. There is no controversy on the general principles applicable to the case. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner prescribed for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending and if by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. See Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes on p. 225; The Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving (1905) A.C. 369, 372). In other words a change in the law of procedure operates retrospectively and unlike the law relating to vested right is not only prospective.” 19. The upshot of the above discussion is that the view taken by the Full Bench holding the amended provision to be applicable to pending cases is not correct on principle. The decision rendered by the Full Bench would, therefore, stand overruled but only prospectively. – “ Prospective declaration of law is a device innovated by this Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of law it is deemed that all actions taken contrary to the declaration of law, prior to the date of the declaration are validated. This is done in larger public interest. Therefore, the subordinate forums which are bound to apply law declared by this Court are also duty bound to apply such dictum to cases which would arise in future. Since it is indisputable that a court can overrule a decision there is no valid reason why it should not be restricted to the future and not to the past. Prospective overruling is not only a part of constitutional policy but also an extended facet of stare decisis and not judicial legislation.” – Under the doctrine of “prospective overruling” the law declared by the Court applies to the cases arising in future only and its applicability to the cases which have attained finality is saved because the repeal would otherwise work hardship to those who had trusted to its existence. Invocation of doctrine of “prospective overruling” is left to the discretion of the court to mould with the justice of the cause or the matter before the court.” – the overruling of the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court will not affect cases that have already been tried or are at an advanced stage before the Magistrates in terms of the said decision

Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5663 of 2011 Ramesh Kumar Soni …Appellant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh …Respondent J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The short question that … Continue reading

whether the first respondent who functioned as the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Madhya Pradesh (“State Commission” for short) for a period of about 4 years and 11 months, after his retirement as a High Court Judge, was entitled to receive pension for this subsequent period in the = Insofar as the order dated April 5, 2002 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh according sanction for counting the service of the respondent on the post of President, State = In view of divergence of opinion in terms of separate judgments pronounced by us in this appeal today, the Registry is directed to place the papers before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appeal being assigned to an appropriate Bench.

1 REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5322 OF 2005   The Accountant General, M.P. …. Appellant Versus S.K. Dubey & Anr. ….Respondents     JUDGMENT   R.M. Lodha, J. The Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh is in appeal, by special leave, aggrieved by the judgment and order … Continue reading

Narmada Bachavo =(2000) 10 SCC 664, (2005) 4 SCC 32 and (2011) 7 SCC 639 which are commonly referred to as Narmada Bachao Ist judgment, Narmada Bachao IInd judgment and Narmada Bachao IIIrd judgement. = The R & R policy unequivocally lays down its entire emphasis on acquisition of land from a displaced family and that displacement also has to be 25% of the land acquired from the family 37

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO._1211 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) 30685 of 2009) State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. ..Appellants Verus Bheru Singh & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1212 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 10163/2010 Bheru Singh & Ors. … Continue reading

trade marks =selling gutka, pan masala, supari, supari mix, zarda, etc. in the name of “Manikchand”, – phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s mark “Malikchand” – and thereby passing off their goods as and for plaintiff’s goods.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10112 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27180 of 2008) Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr. …. Appellants Versus M/s. M.S.S. Food Products ….Respondent JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, by special leave, raises questions of legality of … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,317 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com