Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Murli Manohar Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 August, 2019

Raman Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2019

17. The D.B. considered the case of Damodar Singh Chouhan vs. State of M.P., 2005 (II) MPWN 138, Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rathore vs. State of M.P., 2000(2) MPLJ 43, Rajendra son of Rajaram Pal vs. State of M.P. 2002 (5) MPLJ 301, Manoj Agrawal vs. State of M.P., 2001(1) MPHT 70 and Aasif @ Nakta Vs. State of M.P., I.L.R. 2016 M.P. 2391 decided by M.P. High Court and Didar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, 2004 SCC Online Jhar 560 decided by Jharkhand High Court, Anwar Hussain vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 SCC Online Raj 534 decided by Rajasthan High Court. The D.B. said in para 20 :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - B K Shrivastava - Full Document

Dr. Jogendra Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2023

Curiously, in para-8 of the order of Dr. Murli Manohar Agrawal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench opined that "......in paragraph 86 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARITOSH KUMAR Signing time: 10/6/2023 3:05:26 PM 5 E.P. Royappa's case, the Supreme Court held that denial of officiating charge could be challenged if the same was arbitrary, illegal or malafide".
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Paul - Full Document

Golu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2020

(8) In the case of Aasif @ Nakta vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C.No.7059/2015 decided on 30.09.2015) and in the case of Manoj Agrawal vs. State of M.P. 2001 (1) M.P.H.T.17 . It is held by this Court that provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. is not mandatory but directory. The Magistrate has full power to refuse or 4 grant bail taking into consideration; (1) the nature of allegations (2) whether delay is attributable to the accused or to the prosecution and (3) the criminal antecedents of the accused or any other justifiable reasons.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S K Awasthi - Full Document

Dr. Jogendra Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2022

Per contra, Shri Swapnil Ganguly submits that as per Schedule-III of the Rules, 2013 (Annexure P/3), a person having 5 years experience as Ayurved/Unani/Homeopathy Medical Officer and a Graduate in such stream can be appointed as District Ayush Officer. Therefore, in terms of Schedule-III, the respondent No. 3, despite being Homeopathy Medical Officer, is not debarred from holding the charge of the post of District Ayush Officer. Shri Ganguly has relied upon the order dated 30-08-2019 passed in WP No. 15333/19( Dr. Murli Manohar Agarwal Vs. State of M.P. and two others) and also an order dated 28-09-2022 passed in WP No. 21965/22 ( Dr. Madan Mohan Pandey Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors ) of this court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M S Bhatti - Full Document
1