Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Defendent: a n pradhan · Page 1 of about 21 results (0.080 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Apr 03 1995

State of M.P. Vs. Gobarsingh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-03-1995

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Opium Act, 1857 - Sections 9

Reported in : 1996CriLJ302

Advocate for Respondent : A.N. Pradhan, Adv.

J.G. Chitre, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State for assailing order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Neemuch dtd. 10-11-86 by which he acquitted the respondent of charge levelled against...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 20 2026

Dr. Pranav Jain vs Dr. Divya Jain

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-20-2026

Subject : Service Tax

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Mr. Siddhartha Goswami, Mr. Krish Bhatia, Mr. Harish Kumar

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 366/2025&CM APPL. 63901/2025 DR. PRANAV JAIN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Akshat Sharma, Mr. Shrey Bhardwaj, Mr. Amrit K.N. Pradhan,...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 25 1991

Balramprasad Patel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-25-1991

Subject : Service

Acts : Fundamental Rules - Rule 54; Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Rule 29

Reported in : 1991(0)MPLJ904

Advocate for Respondent : S.K. Pawnekar, Adv.

S.D. Jha, J.1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiff-Government Servant - Balramprasad, was by order dated 24-4-1985 admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law : -'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Nov 23 1994

Gourhari Das and anr. Vs. the State (Central Bureau of Investigation)

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-23-1994

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439

Reported in : 1994IVAD(Delhi)942; 56(1994)DLT670; 1994(31)DRJ648

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) At the instance of the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of India, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case under section 120B read with sections 417, 419, 468 and 471...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 01 1972

Sabastian D'Cruz Vs. Laxman Shreepad Deodhar and Ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-01-1972

Subject : Property

Acts : Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 60

Reported in : 1973MhLJ7

Advocate for Respondent : P.N. Pradhan, ;V.N. Ganpule and ;N.D. Hombalkar, Advs.

1. The original mortgagor-judgment-debtor, Sabastian D'Cruz, is the appellant here, being aggrieved by the Order of the Assistant Judge, Poona confirming the order of the Darkhast Court in the darkhast filed by one Vardichand Ramchand &...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 01 1994

Pami Bisoyi and ors. Vs. Lakshmana Bisoyi and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-01-1994

Subject : Property

Acts : Orissa Estate Abolition, 1952 - Sections 39

Reported in : AIR1994Ori332; 1994(II)OLR362

Advocate for Respondent : G. Rath, ;B.L.N. Swamy, ;N. Prusty, ;N. Pradhan, ;B.K. Nayak and ;B.R. Sarangi, Advs.

R.K. Patra, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs have filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court who has affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 01 1990

K.S. Vohra Vs. Director General of Border Security Force

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Feb-01-1990

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 311; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 30

Advocate for Respondent : S.N. Chetia, Addl. Central Govt. S.C.

S. HAQUE, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the Signal No. R.329 dt. March 22, 1988 of the Officer of the Director General, Border...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 18 2000

Ajay Kumar and Etc. Vs. Girijanand Prasad and anr.

Court : Patna

Decided on : May-18-2000

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 197 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 120B, 365, 368, 323 and 504

Advocate for Respondent : Keshav Srivastav, Sr. Adv. and Sudhir Kr. Singh and Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P.

Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J.1. Quashing appliction bearing Cr. Misc. No. 2018 of 1998 has been filed by Dr. Ajay Kumar, the City Superintendent of Police, Patna at the relevant time, whereas quashing application bearing Cr. Misc....

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 10 1954

Jaswantray Manilal Akhaney Vs. State of Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-10-1954

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 104, 236, 237, 403, 403(1), 423 and 439; Insurence Act, 1938 - Sections 28, 41(2), 107 and 107(1); Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, 1943 - Sections 5 and 13(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 409 and 466

Reported in : AIR1955Bom259; (1955)57BOMLR55; 1955CriLJ1049; ILR1955Bom54

Advocate for Respondent : S.C. Patwardhan and ;D.P. Sethna, Advs., ;S.R. Vakil, Attorneys to Central Govt. and ;H.M. Choksi, Govt. Pleader

Dixit, J.1. This criminal application raises a question under Section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to appreciate the question raised, it is necessary to mention facts relevant to the determination of the...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 19 1987

Avanti Development Company Limited and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-19-1987

Subject : CriminalLabour and Industrial

Acts : Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 - Sections 10, 19, 26, 27(4) and 30; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 469(1)

Reported in : 1988(1)BomCR142; 1988MhLJ81

Advocate for Respondent : S.S. Keluskar, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1

Ashok Agarwal, J.1. This petition seeks to challenge the order of issue of process for an offence under the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 read with the Rules framed thereunder. It raises a couple of questions...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial