Advanced Search Results

Ratnu Yadav Vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

2024 INSC487REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1635 OF2018RATNU YADAV …APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant-accused for the...

Shri Manohar Aglani Vs. Smt. Chhaya Trivedi

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Education

Advocate for Respondent : Shri. Umesh Trivedi, Shri. Sanjay Dwivedi, Shri. Vinot Mehta, Shri. Yogesh Dhande

Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others 8.4.2013 Shri Prashant Singh, counsel for appellants. Shri Umesh Trivedi, counsel for respondent no.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 9.4.2012 in Contempt Case No.1064/2007,...

Gyan Prakash Vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon' ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Education

W.P.No.529/2013 (PIL) and W.P.No.18800/2013 (PIL) 10/01/2014 Petitioner in person with Shri Aditya Sanghi, Advocate as amicus curiae in W.P.No.529/2009 (PIL).Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P.No.18800/2013 (PIL).Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State....

Keshav Prasad Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Land Acquisition

Writ Petition No :2083. / 2013 Keshav Prasad Patel versus State of M.P.and 3 otheRs.08.02.2013. Shri S.P.Pandey for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, Additional Advocate General with Smt. D.K.Bohrey, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance...

Prakash Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Land Acquisition

---1--- W.P.No.13467/2011 (PIL) M.C.C.No.2795/2006 14.12.2012 Shri Amit Seth, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, Addl. Advocate General for State. Shri Mhan Sausarkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Sr.Counsel with Shri Parag Shrivastava, Amicus...

Chitra Mukundan Post Graduate Teacher (Commerce), New Delhi Vs. Union ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Education

Advocate for Respondent : Shri. Prashant Singh

G. George Paracken, Member (J) 1. In this Original Application, the Applicant has challenged the Annexure-A Office Order No.F.11042/1-1/2012-KVS(Estt.I) dated 15.11.2012 issued to her by the Respondent No.3 rejecting her representation dated 19.10.2012 addressed to the...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Jagdish Raj Chouhan

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Asr.)153

1. Since common issues are involved in all the cross-appeals, therefore, all were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that he would...

Shri Chand and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Arms Act - Sections 25; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 395, 397, 411 and 412

Reported in : 1995CriLJ3547

Advocate for Respondent : D.V. Pendharkar, Penal Lawyer

D.P.S. Chouhan, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-3-1986 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No. 105/84.2. In the aforesaid sessions trial as many as 12 accused...

Bholu Singh Tomar Vs. Sanjay Singh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Education

Advocate for Respondent : Shri. Prashant Singh

Conc. No. 1584 Of 2012 19.3.2013 Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for respondents. Heard. After 8 years of disposal of a petition, W.P. No. 9035/2004) (disposed of on...

Ram Sunder Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Education

1 Writ Petition No.16812/2010 18.02.2013 Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate, with Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Prashant Singh, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents/State. It is not disputed that on 4.5.2012 when this court...