Dr. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.

Dr. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava vs The State of M.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 02, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1047536

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1047536
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Apr 02, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dr. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava

Advocate Shri. V.K.Shukla

Respondent

The State of M.P. and ors.

Advocate Shri. D.S.Baghel, Shri. Swapnil Ganguly

Excerpt

writ petition no.5235/200”02. 04.2013 shri v.k.shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri rahul jain, learned govt. advocate, for respondents no.1 & 2. shri d.s.baghel, learned counsel for respondent no.3. shri swapnil ganguly, learned counsel for respondent no.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the document filed and relied by the petitioner as annexure p-12/a is said to be a forged document as alleged in the additional reply by the respondent no.4, it would be necessary for him to meet out such allegations by filing additional rejoinder and for the said purpose a week's time is sought for. let the petition be listed in the week commencing 15th april, 2013 for the purpose of filing additional rejoinder. (k.k.trivedi) judge skc

Full Judgment

WRIT PETITION No.5235/200”

02. 04.2013 Shri V.K.Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt.

Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2.

Shri D.S.Baghel, learned Counsel for respondent No.3.

Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Counsel for respondent No.4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the document filed and relied by the petitioner as Annexure P-12/A is said to be a forged document as alleged in the additional reply by the respondent No.4, it would be necessary for him to meet out such allegations by filing additional rejoinder and for the said purpose a week's time is sought for.

Let the petition be listed in the week commencing 15th April, 2013 for the purpose of filing additional rejoinder.

(K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Dr. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava vs The State of M.P. and ors. Same Subject Education