Filter results by 1
Document types
Courts
- Bombay High Court56312
- Kerala High Court55404
- Patna High Court43187
- Telangana High Court28102
- Punjab and Haryana High Court18443
- Rajasthan High Court15859
- Gujarat High Court10284
- Chhattisgarh High Court9470
Judges in the latest 300
- Debtsrecovery Tribunal8
- Goda Raghuram6
- Ghulam Mohammed6
- R.P. Sondurbaldota4
- D.S.R.Varma3
- V.Eswaraiah3
- F.I. Rebello3
- R.P.Sondurbaldota2
Years
Decided between
All courts — latest judgments
161–170 of 258,046 judgments, newest first (0.03 seconds)
-
WPCRL/608/2008 of DR. MANOJ KUMAR Vs STATE AND OTHERS
Uttarakhand High Court 31 December 2008
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPCRL NO. 608 OF 2008 Dr. Manoj Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State and Ors. …………Opp. Party. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand / opposite parties.
-
BA1/975/2008 of BABU CHAUDHARY Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Uttarakhand High Court 31 December 2008
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 31st December, 2008 1st Bail Application No. 975 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Babu Chaudhary S/o Sri Liyakat Chaudhary …….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …….. Opposite
-
WPMS/617/2008 of SMT. ANITA CHANDOK Vs STATE AND ANOTHER
Uttarakhand High Court 31 December 2008
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 617 of 2008 (M/S) Smt. Anita Chandok, W/o Sri Ramesh Chand Chandok, R/o Kali Kamli Bazar, Uttarkashi. ....................Petitioner. Versus (1) State Industrial Development Corporation Uttarakhand Ltd., through its Managing …
-
WPMS/1634/2007 of PRAGYA VAJPAI and ORS Vs STATE and ANOTHER
Uttarakhand High Court 31 December 2008
of 2007 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Sri B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, present for the respondent no. 1. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2. Sri Mohd. Azim, Advocate …
-
WPCRL/997/2008 of VISHAL Vs STATE and OTHERS
Uttarakhand High Court 31 December 2008
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 997 of 2008 Vishal S/o Sri Srawan Kumar …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …… Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State.
-
CLCON/309/2006 of ABDUL REHMAN and ORS Vs BHASKRANAND JOSHI
Uttarakhand High Court 31 December 2008
Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondent. Learned counsel for petitioners has stated at bar that impugned order passed by this Court has been complied …
-
WPMS/1436/2008 of HARISH CHAND Vs STATE AND ORS.
Uttarakhand High Court 31 December 2008
of 2008 Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Shri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s licence to run the fair price shop has been cancelled. Learned …
-
WPMS/1054/2003 of ABDUL TAHIR Vs D.D.C. and ORS.
Uttarakhand High Court 31 December 2008
of 2003 Hon’ble B. S. Verma, J. List has been revised. None responds for the petitioner, though called twice. Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is present. The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order dated 21-10-2003 is vacated. …
-
C482/870/2008 of LALIT MOHAN PANDEY Vs STATE AND ORS
Uttarakhand High Court 31 December 2008
1131/08 & Compounding App. No. 1134/08 In C-482 No. 870/08 Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondent no. 01. Mr. Mohd Azam, Adv. for respondent no. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the …
-
C482/436/2008 of RAMESH GUPTA Vs STATE
Uttarakhand High Court 31 December 2008
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondent- State. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated at Bar that the petition has become infructuous as the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court. In view of the above …