Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (5.57 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P vs Vikas Kumar Pandey And Others on 30 May, 2019

Vikas Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 December, 2024

10. Accordingly, the proceedings of summoning order dated 12.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Additional CJM, Court No.1, Bulandshahr as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6144 of 2024 (State Vs. Vikas Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 310 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Syana, District Bulandshahr, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M R Chauhan - Full Document

Anita Markam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 February, 2023

22. Mr. Pali submits that the advertisement did not stipulate that any relaxation is given in respect of the educational qualifications and submission of Mr. Siddiqui that clause 5 of the advertisement provides 5% of relaxation in minimum qualification marks is not correct. It is further contended that Rules of 2019 does not provide any relaxation or for that matter, Paragraph III(ii) of notification dated 29.07.2011 also does not provide relaxation in respect of educational qualifications and that relaxation is given for the purpose of training to be undergone by persons as required under Clause III(i)(a)(b). He has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Vikas Kumar Singh, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 347, Vikas Sankhala and others (supra) and V. Lavanya & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Meena Toppo vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 February, 2023

22. Mr. Pali submits that the advertisement did not stipulate that any relaxation is given in respect of the educational qualifications and submission of Mr. Siddiqui that clause 5 of the advertisement provides 5% of relaxation in minimum qualification marks is not correct. It is further contended that Rules of 2019 does not provide any relaxation or for that matter, Paragraph III(ii) of notification dated 29.07.2011 also does not provide relaxation in respect of educational qualifications and that relaxation is given for the purpose of training to be undergone by persons as required under Clause III(i)(a)(b). He has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Vikas Kumar Singh, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 347, Vikas Sankhala and others (supra) and V. Lavanya & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abhishek Kumar Nirmalkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 February, 2023

22. Mr. Pali submits that the advertisement did not stipulate that any relaxation is given in respect of the educational qualifications and submission of Mr. Siddiqui that clause 5 of the advertisement provides 5% of relaxation in minimum qualification marks is not correct. It is further contended that Rules of 2019 does not provide any relaxation or for that matter, Paragraph III(ii) of notification dated 29.07.2011 also does not provide relaxation in respect of educational qualifications and that relaxation is given for the purpose of training to be undergone by persons as required under Clause III(i)(a)(b). He has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Vikas Kumar Singh, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 347, Vikas Sankhala and others (supra) and V. Lavanya & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manees Kumar Meshram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 February, 2023

22. Mr. Pali submits that the advertisement did not stipulate that any relaxation is given in respect of the educational qualifications and submission of Mr. Siddiqui that clause 5 of the advertisement provides 5% of relaxation in minimum qualification marks is not correct. It is further contended that Rules of 2019 does not provide any relaxation or for that matter, Paragraph III(ii) of notification dated 29.07.2011 also does not provide relaxation in respect of educational qualifications and that relaxation is given for the purpose of training to be undergone by persons as required under Clause III(i)(a)(b). He has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Vikas Kumar Singh, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 347, Vikas Sankhala and others (supra) and V. Lavanya & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satishwar Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 February, 2023

22. Mr. Pali submits that the advertisement did not stipulate that any relaxation is given in respect of the educational qualifications and submission of Mr. Siddiqui that clause 5 of the advertisement provides 5% of relaxation in minimum qualification marks is not correct. It is further contended that Rules of 2019 does not provide any relaxation or for that matter, Paragraph III(ii) of notification dated 29.07.2011 also does not provide relaxation in respect of educational qualifications and that relaxation is given for the purpose of training to be undergone by persons as required under Clause III(i)(a)(b). He has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Vikas Kumar Singh, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 347, Vikas Sankhala and others (supra) and V. Lavanya & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Preetam Lal Padoti vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 February, 2023

22. Mr. Pali submits that the advertisement did not stipulate that any relaxation is given in respect of the educational qualifications and submission of Mr. Siddiqui that clause 5 of the advertisement provides 5% of relaxation in minimum qualification marks is not correct. It is further contended that Rules of 2019 does not provide any relaxation or for that matter, Paragraph III(ii) of notification dated 29.07.2011 also does not provide relaxation in respect of educational qualifications and that relaxation is given for the purpose of training to be undergone by persons as required under Clause III(i)(a)(b). He has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Vikas Kumar Singh, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 347, Vikas Sankhala and others (supra) and V. Lavanya & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharya Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 February, 2023

22. Mr. Pali submits that the advertisement did not stipulate that any relaxation is given in respect of the educational qualifications and submission of Mr. Siddiqui that clause 5 of the advertisement provides 5% of relaxation in minimum qualification marks is not correct. It is further contended that Rules of 2019 does not provide any relaxation or for that matter, Paragraph III(ii) of notification dated 29.07.2011 also does not provide relaxation in respect of educational qualifications and that relaxation is given for the purpose of training to be undergone by persons as required under Clause III(i)(a)(b). He has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Vikas Kumar Singh, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 347, Vikas Sankhala and others (supra) and V. Lavanya & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhanupriya Beck vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 February, 2023

22. Mr. Pali submits that the advertisement did not stipulate that any relaxation is given in respect of the educational qualifications and submission of Mr. Siddiqui that clause 5 of the advertisement provides 5% of relaxation in minimum qualification marks is not correct. It is further contended that Rules of 2019 does not provide any relaxation or for that matter, Paragraph III(ii) of notification dated 29.07.2011 also does not provide relaxation in respect of educational qualifications and that relaxation is given for the purpose of training to be undergone by persons as required under Clause III(i)(a)(b). He has relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Vikas Kumar Singh, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 347, Vikas Sankhala and others (supra) and V. Lavanya & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next