Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Defendent: g bardhar · Page 1 of about 4 results (0.021 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.

May 17 2002

Ladu Ram Jat Vs. C.J. (S.D.) C.J.M. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-17-2002

Subject : Election

Acts : Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 19(1) and 39

Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj993; 2002(3)WLC555

Advocate for Respondent : G. Bardhar, Adv.

Rathore, J. 1. For conducting the elections of Gram Panchayat, State of Rajaslhan has issued a notification dated 11th January, 2000 and in pursuance of the notification dated 11th January, 2000, the election of the Sarpanch...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 10 2007

Shivji Lal and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-10-2007

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : 2007(3)WLN575

Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Challenge in this case is the judgment dt. 06.11.1996 passed by the learned Board of Revenue on a reference of Additional Collector, Tonk under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 05 1992

Ram Kishan Vs. Chandra Kanta

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-05-1992

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13

Reported in : II(1992)DMC198

Advocate for Respondent : G. Bardhar, Adv.

T.S. Israni, J.1. This Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1955') has been filed against the judgment dated...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

May 25 2006

Murlidhar Yadav and ors. Vs. Smt. Dipti Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-25-2006

Subject : Civil

Acts : Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65, 66 and 74

Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2362; 2006(3)WLC560

Advocate for Respondent : G. Bardhar and; Anil Kumar, Advs.

K.S. Rathore, J.1. Since both the aforesaid writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.2. The petitioner plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and permanent...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

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

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial