Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: mr b b singh · Page 1 of about 78 results (0.437 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.

Aug 07 2012

St. Joseph's Hospital Trust Vs. the Kerala University Of Health Scienc ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-07-2012

Subject : Education

K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Both the Writ Petitions being connected, they are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Petitioner claims to be an educational agency of a self financing pharmacy college. Petitioner's college fell under...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 25 1999

Kapildeo Prasad Sah and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-25-1999

Subject : Contempt of Court

Reported in : AIR1999SC3215; 1999(3)BLJR2367; 1999(3)CTC189; JT1999(6)SC215; 1999(5)SCALE183; (1999)7SCC569; [1999]Supp1SCR725; 2000(1)SLJ134(SC); 1999(2)LC1370(SC); (2000)1UPLBEC264

Advocate for Appellant : Shanti Bhushan and; Jayant Bhushan, Advs

D.P. Wadhwa, J. 1. Leave granted.2 On refusal of the Patna High Court to initiate proceedings for contempt against the respondents, the appellants have come to this Court.3. The appellants were working as Assistant Teachers in...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 31 2009

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bal Mukund and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-31-2009

Subject : Narcotics

Acts : Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 18, 25, 27, 42, 42(1), 42(2), 50, 55, 67, 55, 57 and 67; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 108, 138B and 138B(1); Evidence Act - Sections 25, 26, 30 and 134; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 161 and 313

Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR1468; 2009CriLJ2407; JT2009(5)SC45; 2009(4)SCALE606; (2009)12SCC161; 2009(4)LC1769(SC):2009AIRSCW2604:2009(4)LHSC2390

Advocate for Appellant : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Adv.,; B.B. Singh,; Binu Tamta, Advs. fo

S.B. Sinha, J.1. Union of India is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 13.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal Nos. 964 and...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Dec 20 2012

Matrix Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd. Through Capt. R Vs. Sanjoy Mukherji ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-20-2012

Subject : Service Tax

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Mr. Karan Minocha

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:8. h August, 2012 Pronounced on:20. h December, 2012 + CONT. CAS (C) 823/2011 MATRIX CELLULAR SERVICES PVT. LTD. through CAPT. RAKESH WALIA ..... Petitioner...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 04 2001

The C.B.i. (A.H.D.) Vs. Braj Bhushan Prasad and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : May-04-2001

Subject : Civil

Aftab Alam, J.1. These two proceedings before the Full Bench are on reference made under Section 89(2) of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000. The object of the reference is to determine whether by virtue of Section...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 24 2003

Bishwanath Dubey and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

Decided on : Feb-24-2003

Subject : Service

Acts : Assistants of the Secretariat and Attached Offices Joint Cadre Act, 1989 - Sections 2 and 3; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 44

Advocate for Appellant : Basudeo Ram, Law Secretary, Government of IndiaP.K. Shahi and Vikash Kumar, Advs.

Ravi Dhavan, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against an order dated 11 September, 1995 on C.W.J.C. No. 4900 of 1995: Bishwanath Dubey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2. On facts...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 02 2002

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mehboob Khan and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-02-2002

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 141, 148, 149, 302 and 307

Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT241; 2002(1)MPLJ611

Advocate for Appellant : Chanchal Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 16-9-89, passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Session Trial No. 103/85, where by accused Farookh...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 24 1995

State of Bihar and Others Etc. Vs. B.S. Mathur and Others, Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-24-1995

Subject : Labour and IndustrialConstitution

Acts : Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 - Rule 161; Rajendra Argricultural University Act, 1971 - Sections 39(19); Constitution of India - Articles 226

Reported in : AIR1996SC251; 1996(1)BLJR617; [1995(71)FLR1093]; JT1995(7)SC360; 1995LabIC2705; 1995(5)SCALE180; 1995Supp(3)SCC565; [1995]Supp3SCR48; 1996(2)SLJ30(SC)

Advocate for Appellant : B.B. Singh, Adv

1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the counsel for the parties. These appeals by special leave arise from the order dated December 18, 1991 of the Division Bench of Patna High Court at Ranchi in C.WJ.C....

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 01 2002

Malhu Yadav and ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-01-2002

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 109, 147, 141, 148, 149, 225, 300, 302, 304, 323, 324, 378 and 379; Constitution of India - Article 136

Reported in : AIR2002SC2137; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)65; 2002(2)BLJR1399; 2002CriLJ2819; 2002(2)Crimes417(SC); 2002(4)SCALE285; (2002)5SCC724; [2002]3SCR676

Advocate for Appellant : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Adv.,; Sanjay Jain and; Anil Kumar Jha,

Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.7.1999 of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1987 confirming the judgment dated 18.12.1986 of the...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 04 2000

Chakrawarti Prasad Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-04-2000

Subject : CriminalElectricity

Reported in : (2002)10SCC390

 K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. We were not initially inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court because it was passed in the discretion of the High Court. But Dr...

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