Madhya Pradesh Court November 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
N.K. Paliwal Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP90
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner has filed this petition asserting that he is now practising at Pohri. Earlier, he was practising at Shivpuri. He wanted to be appointed as a Notary. He submitted an application on 5th of Dec. 1991. Instead of appointing the petitioner as 'Notary', another advocate, namely, Ram-sewak Gupta was so appointed. It is this appointment which is being challenged.3. The challenge is made on the ground that under Rule 7(1) of the Notaries Rules. 1956, an inquiry is required to be held by the competent authority and in case some material is there to reject the candidature of the person then he should be given an opportunity. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was not residing at Pohri. This fact is disputed by the petitioner.4. Rule 7(1) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 provides that the competent authority should hold an inquiry and the applicant should be given an opportunity to meet the objections. This rule reads as u...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ297
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. Petitioner have filed this application for quashing the order taking cognizance as also the entire proceeding in Criminal Case No. 2647 of 1985 pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. It appears that on the basis of a complaint made by the Drug Inspector, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 19-7-1985, took cognizance of the offence under Section 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to the Act for brevity) and directed for issuance of process against the petitioners.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a company having its registered office in the State of Haryana and petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Director. Petitioner No. 3 has been termed as member of the Board of Directors, but Shri Datt, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, seeks permission to delete petitioner No. 3. Permission to delete the name of petitioner No. 3 is granted and the same stands deleted.3. Shorn of unnecessary details the gist of ...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1476
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. Petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order taking cognizance as also the entire proceeding in Criminal Case No. 2647 of 1985 pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. It appears that on the basis of a complaint made by the Drug Inspector, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 19-7-1985, took cognizance of the offence under Section 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to the Act for brevity) and directed for issuance of process against the petitioners.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a company having its registered office in the State of Haryana and petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Director. Petitioner No.3 has been termed as member of the Board of Directors, but Shri Datt, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, seeks permission to delete petitioner No. 3, permission to delete the name of petitioner No. 3 is granted and the same stands deleted.3. Shorn of unnecessary details the gist of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›