Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Dheeraj Kansana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2014

Ramesh Kumar Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2015

"7. In the opinion of this Court, this is settled in law that once an employee is classified as permanent employee, as per provisions of Standard Standing Order, he for all practical purposes shall be treated as permanent employee. This aspect is dealt with by this Court in W.P.No. 5813/2010 (Devendra Singh WP 8748/2013 Ramesh Kumar Chaturvedi vs. State of MP & others 2 Kansana Vs. State of M.P. & Others). This Court opined as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Ramsevak Swarnkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2015

"7. In the opinion of this Court, this is settled in law that once an employee is classified as permanent employee, as per provisions of Standard Standing Order, he for all practical purposes shall be treated as permanent employee. This aspect is dealt with by this Court in W.P.No. 5813/2010 (Devendra Singh WP 8508/2013 Ramsewak Swarnkar vs. State of MP & others 2 Kansana Vs. State of M.P. & Others). This Court opined as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramkaran Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2017

The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable inasmuch as in the case of Dheeraj Kansana (supra), no preliminary inquiry was made before registering the FIR though it was held to be necessary by this Court and therefore, FIR was quashed and SHO was directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry and if commission of cognizable offence is disclosed, then to initiate suitable proceedings.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dheeraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2017

Taking into consideration that the applicant was on bail and due to ill health he could not appear before the trial Court on 7.9.2016, hence non-bailable warrant was issued and the applicant has surrendered before the trial Court and is assuring to remain present punctually in future in attending the Court, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is 2 MCRC.1834/17 (Dheeraj Vs. State of MP) directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sonu @ Dheeraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2017

Having perused the case diary and contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties coupled with the fact that the investigation is complete and challan has been filed, the applicant being a student of Class XII and is going to appear in the forthcoming 2 Mis. Cr. Case No.24694/2017 (Sonu alias Dheeraj Vs. State of MP) Board examinations and further a young boy of 18 years, therefore, keeping him jail with hardened criminals shall have adverse psychological effect as well as he has no criminal antecedents, but, without expressing any opinion of merits, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, a case is made out for grant of bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next