Advanced Search Results

ChaIn Singh Vs. State

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Ranbir Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 21 and 471; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1989

Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ268

Advocate for Respondent : A.S. Dogra, Dy. Adv. General

J.P. Singh, J.1. Mrs. Surinder Kour, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks quashing of proceedings in case titled State v. Chain Singh, pending disposal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda, under Section 471 R.P.C on a...

Raj Kumar Vs. State

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Ranbir Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 473, 474 and 511; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , - Sections 32, 54, 342 and 428; ;Evidence Act - Section 27; ;Probation of Offenders Act

Reported in : 2004(2)JKJ382

Advocate for Respondent : A.S. Dogra, Dy. A.G.

Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. The accused-appellant was put to trial for commission of offences Under Sections 420, 474, 467, 468 and 473 RPC. He was convicted Under Section 466, 474, 420, read with Section 511 RPC by...

Raj Kumar Vs. State

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Ranbir Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 473, 474 and 511; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 54, 342 and 428

Reported in : 2005CriLJ1322

Advocate for Respondent : A.S. Dogra, Dy. A.G.

Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. The accused-appellant was put to trial for commission of offences u/ss. 420, 474, 467, 468 & 473 RPC. He was convicted u/ss 466, 474, 420, read with sec. 511 RPC by the learned...

Texmaco Limited Vs. the Union of India and anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: January 28, 2013 + CS(OS) No.1439/1991 TEXMACO LIMITED Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Sumit Sen, Adv. versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR ........

State Vs. Hav. Mangla Kumar and A.M. Sangma

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Courts and Court-martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1983 - Rules 3 and 4; ;Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 549; ;Ranbir Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302, 304 and 307

Reported in : 2004(2)JKJ498

Advocate for Respondent : Tabasum Mughal and; Nitin Bhasin, Advs.

Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. As in both these criminal references, a common question of law is involved, therefore, both these references are being disposed of by a common order.2. The question involved in these criminal references is...

Smt. Suman Taneja Vs. Rakesh Taneja and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, Ms. Meenakshi Singh

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.22/2014 30th January, 2014 % SMT. SUMAN TANEJA Through: ......Appellant Mr. S.S. Dogra, Advocate. VERSUS RAKESH TANEJA AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Sudhir...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S Harjit Rice Mills

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : MRTP

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. CIMA No. 632 OF 201.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Petitioners M/s Harjit Rice Mills Respondent !Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, Advocate Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate ^Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate Honble Mr....

Date of Decision:29.5.2014 Vs. Nidhi Kukal Petitioner

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Land Acquisition

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3916 of 2014 Date of Decision:29.5.2014 Nidhi Kukal Petitioner Versus General Public Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr.B.S.Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner...

Foja Singh and ors. Vs. State

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 15, 37, 37(1) and 54

Reported in : 2004CriLJ4375,2004(2)JKJ526

Advocate for Respondent : A.S. Dogra, Dy. AG.

S.K. Gupta, J.1. This application has been preferred for grant of bail to the petitioners facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, for the commission of offences contrary to Sections 15/16 of the Narcotic Drugs...

Jagdev Singh Vs. Teedi

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 - Sections 30 and 34

Advocate for Respondent : H.S. Dogra, Adv.

ORDERB.A. Khan, J. 1. Respondent is the wife of petitioner. Her application under Section 30 of Hindu Marriage Act, for pendente lite maintenance allowance has been allowed by the court below. As a result, Petitioner has...