.....till the examination held by the barkatullah vishwavidyalaya. if the barkatullah vishwavidyalaya had withdrawn the affiliation of the institution it should not have issued the admission card for examination to the petitioner and allowed her to appear in the same. the fault, therefore, lies more on the barkatullah vishwavidyalaya. in the fact situation of the case, we are of the view that at this stage it would be wholly unfair and unjust to deny the petitioner a degree of b.ed.6. we accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the barkatullah vishwavidyalaya to immediately declare the result of petitioner of b.ed. examination."as the controversy involved in this case is identical, this petition is disposed of in terms of the directions issued in vartika tripathi (supra). the directions issued in vartika tripathi (supra) shall be applicable in the present case, as far as they are applicable. no order as to costs. c.c. as per rules. (krishn kumar lahoti) (b.d.rathi) judge judge c.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....dangi. kushal singh dangi who is present in court has also stated that the vakalatnama does not bear his signature. in view of aforesaid, we find that in this case, a fraud has been played with the court by filing the petition by impersonating some other person and for filing this petition by impersonation, praveen dhars.is responsible. considering facts of the case, praveen dhars.is directed to produce sarita pawar and abhay narayan before this court on 9.4.2013. however, to complete the enquiry in this regard, we direct to praveen dhars.to produce a surety for his presence before this court during 2 w.p.no.4175/2013 sarita pawar & others state of m.p.& others 8.4.2013 cours.of the day and if he furnishes bail and personal bond of rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of the registry, he be released on bail, otherwise he be sent to jail for his appearance before this court on the next date of hearing. be listed for hearing on 9.4.2013. (krishn kumar lahoti) (b.d.rathi) judge judge c.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the state in case any mistake in posting of the petitioner was committed, to rectify the mistake immediately and to intimate this court about such fact. even when the state authorities have written that the posting order of petitioner was wrongly issued and a correction in the same was necessary, such fact was required to be intimated to the authorities immediately. even from the letter dated 9.7.2007, it is clear that the respondent no.6 was informed that the fact relating to mistake committed in making posting of the petitioner was noted down by the authorities at state level and they were issuing the necessary orders and this fact was to be brought to the notice of this court even then, nothing was done by him. on the other hand, pursuance to the order dated 10.7.2007, the petitioner was said to be transferred and posted in a school at majhouli, jabalpur. it was this order which was sought to be implemented, instead of complying with the order of the court. such an attitude of the respondent no.6 cannot be said to be correct and proper con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others action. similarly, the respondent no.4 was also responsible for issuing.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....shri s. chile, ga for state. heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties. this petition under section 482 of cr.p.c.has been filed in order to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court to direct the trial court in st no.103/13, pending before 15th asj.jabalpur to call for the documents for which application under section 91 of cr.p.c.vide dated 5.2.13 has been kept pending by the learned trial court as pre-mature up to the date of framing of the charge. learned counsel for petitioner submits that as on 6.3.13 charges have been framed by learned trial court, therefore, learned trial court may be directed to call for the documents which are in the form of report dated 24.5.12 of complainant to dig, consequential statement taken in enquiry on 6.6.12 of complainant. the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel seems to be reasonable, therefore, it is directed that the documents which are in the form of report dated 24.5.12 of complainant to dig, consequential statement taken in 2 enquiry on 6.6.12 of complainant be called before the examination of complainant and her witnesses. so far as other prayer for calling of copy of notice and reply is concerned,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....lacs. applicant has brought to the notice of this court various orders passed in the proceedings under section 438, where anticipatory bail has been granted in deposit of some amount. keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail on his paying a sum of ` 8 lacs (rupees eight lacs only) with the department and furnishing bail bond of ` 5 lacs (rupees five lacs only) with two solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to complying with the mandatory provisions as contemplated under section 438(2) of the criminal procedure code. this order shall be in force for a period of 60 days, within which period applicant shall seek regular bail. the application stands allowed and disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge nd
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTwrit petition no ::5012. / 2013 m/s girdhar infrastructure pvt.ltd versus smt. shaifali gupta & others 08.04.2013. shri manot jain for the petitioner. grievance of the petitioner is that an application for temporary injunction under order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure, is pending consideration before the 16th civil judge class i, bhopal since may 2012 and till date the same has not been decided. keeping in view the aforesaid grievance, for the present without entering into the controvers.on merits, the learned court below, before whom the application for temporary injunction is pending, is directed to consider and decide the application in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. with the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the collector is not correct and still there are certain encroachment in the premises. at this stage, it is submitted by the petitioner that order dated 12.2.2013 has not been complied with. in reply to it, it is submitted by the respondent that against the aforesaid persons, departmental proceedings were initiated and as per para 4 of the reply dated 31.10.2012 they were punished. in reply to the same, petitioner submitted that they were not adequately punished and looking to the misconduct, they deserve some severe punishment. in this regard, suffice it to say, that the petitioner may take recours.of law but in the contempt jurisdiction, we cannot examine the correctness and adequateness of the punishment imposed on the aforesaid person. so far as the encroachment part is concerned, the petitioner may file affidavit if he is not satisfied with the report of the collector, umaria filed alongwith the reply dated 6.4.2013. the collector, umaria is also directed to produce photographs of the spot showing that as on date there is no encroachment of any person in the school premises. for this purpose, hearing of this case is adjourned for two weeks. c.c.as per rules. (krishn.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT1 w.p.no.5701/2013 8/4/2013: shri vinay pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri vivek agrawal, learned govt. adv.for the respondents on advance notice. as the representation of the petitioner with regard to the running of fair price shop annexure p/6 is pending before the collector, chhatarpur, respondent no.1, for the present, without entering into the controvers.and without expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioner, respondent no.3 is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. with the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge mrs.mishra
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....mentioned to show that what was the difficulty to the learned additional sessions judge in framing the charges of offence punishable under sections 467 of ipc. if the respondent was transporting some minerals on the forged permit then, charge of offence punishable under section 467 of ipc could be framed. under such circumstances, the order dated 23.6.2011 appears to be patently wrong. it would be proper to give one more opportunity to the learned additional sessions judge, pawai to consider the framing of charges according to the law. consequently, the order dated 23.6.2011 is hereby set aside. the trial court is directed to pass a fresh order about framing of charges after considering the position as to whether the charge of offence punishable under sections 467, 471 and 379 of ipc is made out or not. a copy of the order be sent to the trial court alongwith its record for information and compliance. crr no.1545/2011 the respondent is directed to appear before the trial court on 7.5.2013 to participate in the proceedings. (n.k.gupta) judge pushpendra
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....was adduced. after considering the prosecution evidence, the learned jmfc pawai acquitted the respondents no.1 to 3 from the charge of offence under section 498-a read with section 34 of ipc. the appeal filed under section 372 of cr.p.c.filed by the applicant was dismissed by the learned additional sessions judge, pawai. after considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is apparent that the victim savita vishwakarma (pw-1) visited the house of the respondents only for three times. in first-two times nothing was done with her, but she was called for the third time when her grand mother-in-law had expired. she reached to the house of the respondents on 1.7.2006 and she went back on 3.7.2007 and in the duration of these two- three days, she had alleged about the harassment with the pretext of dowry demand. if the evidence of savita vishwakarma (pw-1).shivkumari (pw-2).sanjiv kumar (pw-3) and ramdas vishwakarma (pw-4) is examined, then they have stated omnibus allegation of their demand, for example cash of rs.50,000/-, refrigerator, washing machine etc.the complainant had examined the various witnesses which were the neighbours of the respondents......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT