Filter precedents
1
Reset all246 of 2008
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 246 of 2008 Nikesh Chandra Murari & others …Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Arvind Vashisth,
Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. (Delay Condn. Appln. No.1379/09) Mr. A.U. Siddiqui, Adv. i/b Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Adv. for the applicant- revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Perused the delay condonation application supported by affidavit. Grounds stated in the …
Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. (Delay Condn. Appln. No.1372/09) None is present for the applicants- appellants to press the delay condonation application. Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State is present. The delay condonation application is, therefore, dismissed for want of
Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. None is present for the petitioners. Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State, who makes a statement that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the other accused persons, however the petitioners have not been …
Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, Adv. i/b Mr. Lokpal Singh, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State, who makes a statement that after completion of investigation, final report has been submitted in this case. Averment to this effect …
1123 of 2009
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.1123 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Govind Singh Parihar ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party
Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. None for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. Learned brief holder makes a statement at bar that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in this case, hence this writ petition has been rendered …
1073 of 2009
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Ist Bail Application No.1073 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Vinod Singh ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party
1262 of 2009
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Ist Bail Application No.1262 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE 1. Ram Kumar 2. Jodh Singh ……….Applicants (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party
1068 of 2009
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1068 of 2009 Date of decision: December 28, 2009. Nirmala Devi …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Arush
View Full Judgment
Save to My Vault