Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

J.W. Benon Vs. State

Cites for this judgment

  • Delhi High Court
  • Nov 08, 1967

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

77 entries 3 linked 74 unlinked
Show
  1. State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries
    Search
  2. State of Kerala v. Aluminium
    Search
  3. Air 1906 Calcutta 291
    Search
  4. of the Constitution. However, it is now settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in S. A. L. Naravan Row etc. v. Ishwarlal
    Search
  5. Bhagwandas etc. and in Ramesh and antoher v. Jendalal
    Search
  6. Nadhmal v. Commissioners
    Search
  7. In United Mtoors (India) Limited v. State
    Search
  8. State of Bombay v. United
    Search
  9. In Inder Singh v. State
    Search
  10. In Mandir Thakar Dawara v. State
    Search
  11. In Manindra v. Municipal
    Search
  12. In Mohd. Ibrahim v. Deputy
    Search
  13. In Shanmuga Rajeshwar Sethupathi v. State
    Search
  14. In M. S. Ganabathi Nadar v. State
    Search
  15. In Bankimchandra Chakravarty v. Regional
    Search
  16. AIR1957Mad570 , v. Ramaswamy
    Search
  17. the joint application for quashing the several prosecutions was nto maintainable. 19. In Bishwaranjan Bose and tohers v. The
    Search
  18. terminating their services, and that, thereforee, they should have made 4 separate applications for separate writs. v. Ramaswamy
    Search
  19. was held that separate writ petitions should have been filed by the 4 petitioners. (18) In Annum Adinarayana and antoher v. State
    Search
  20. Collector of Monghy v. Paratap
    Search
  21. In Management of Rainbow Dyeing Factory v. Industrial
    Search
  22. good law in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court referred to above by me. (20) In Uma Shankar Rai and tohers v. Divisional
    Search
  23. In Qurbali v. Government
    Search
  24. gave rise to one cause of action, and the relief sought for by all the petitioners was the same (22) In Balak and tohers v. State
    Search
  25. In Revenue Palwaris Union v. State
    Search
  26. In Ramchand Nihalchand Advani v. Anandlal
    Search
  27. s. Mount Corporation and tohers v. Director
    Search
  28. In N. C. Upadhaya v. State
    Search
  29. Uma Shanker Rai v. Divisional
    Search
  30. In Khurjawala Buckles Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  31. In Khemkaran v. State
    Search
  32. a large number of persons. (29) Thus, in view of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in S.A.L. Naryan Row etc. v. Ishwarlal
    Search
  33. supra) , the legal position set out in the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Annum Adinarayan and antoher v. State
    Search
  34. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu
    Search
  35. Chapter IV-F(B) of the Rules and Orders of Punjab High Court. Volume v. The
    Search
  36. Brahma Shah v. State
    Search
  37. Nandeshwar Prashad v. U.P
    Search
  38. Namit Lal v. State
    Search
  39. Sarjoo Parsad v. State
    Search
  40. Sarjoo Prasad v. State
    Search
  41. Stae of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishau
    Search
  42. State of Madya Pradesh v. Vishnu
    Search
  43. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal
    Search
  44. State of Kerala v. Aluminium
    Search
  45. Nadhmal v. Commissioners
    Search
  46. In United Mtoors (India) Limited v. State
    Search
  47. State of Bombay v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial