Skip to content
How to use Narrow results with filters
  1. Run a keyword search first to load the results page.
  2. Select Supreme Court, a High Court, or tribunal on the left.
  3. Optionally filter by decision year to focus on recent or historical cases.

19 2 - Judgment Search Results

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

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.

Jun 21 2006

Lakshmi Ganesh Films and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-21-2006

Reported in: 2006(4)ALD374

Constitution.15. Article 19(1)(a) provides that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) reads:Nothing in sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the … under Article 19(1)(a) and the permissible extent of restrictions that may be placed upon the right qua article 19(2).21. The provisions of Section 8 not having been challenged, the validity of this provision is an uncontested assumption


Jul 17 2002

Manoj Vs. Savita

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jul-17-2002

Reported in: 2003CriLJ3087

1218/2000, pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Jabalpur, this petitioner has challenged not only the aforesaid order dated 19-2-2001, but also seeks quashment of aforesaid criminal case, after being unsuccessful in his Crl. Rev. No. 307/2001, which


Apr 18 2006

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. S.S. Bawa and anr.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Apr-18-2006

Reported in: (2006)143PLR590

in view of the provisions contained in Rule 12(3) of the Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LTC Rules'). He was informed that under the aforesaid Rule, a Government Servant … S.S. Nijjar, J.1. The Union of India has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.1.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,


18-section briefs on any result in this list

Mar 23 2005

Hamsa Vs. Food Inspector

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Mar-23-2005

Reported in: 2005(2)KLT998

this Criminal Revision Petition is whether or not the petitioner is entitled for the benefit guaranteed under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Adulteration Act.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- On 10.11.1989


May 01 2003

Modern Threads (i) Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: May-01-2003

Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1977; 2003(3)WLC583

in the present case are wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948') and if so, the appellant is enjoined to pay contribution


Jan 20 1997

Smt. Barfi Devi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Jan-20-1997

Reported in: 1997CriLJ2152; 1997(2)WLC142

601 dt. 1-4-89 that it was purchased by him from M/s. Santosh Kumar Maganlal Khabia, Kushalgarh accused No. 2 Shri Rajnikant. M/s. Santosh Kumar Maganlal Khabia further stated to have purchased the mustard oil by bill No. … magistrate, Kushalgarh in criminal regular case No. 626/91 Under Section 7 r/w 16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter in short the Act). The petitioners have prayed that the proceedings of the aforesaid case against them;


Dec 22 1998

Dr. Vineet Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Dec-22-1998

Reported in: AIR1999Raj187; 1999(1)WLC667

for being selected in P.G. Course from 50% to 33% in the Pre-P.G. Entrance Examination in the year 1998 for admission to M.D./M.S./Diploma Course.2. The University of Rajasthan had laid down the eligibility conditions for the said


Aug 06 1992

General Manager, Western Railway and ors. Vs. Authority Under Payment ...

Court: Rajasthan

Decided on: Aug-06-1992

Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1066Raj; 1993(1)WLC641

excluded by virtue of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'). 2. An application under Section 15(2) of1936 Act was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Authority appointed under … District Court to hear Appeals against an order passed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short 'the Act of 1936') by a competent authority stands excluded by virtue of the provisions of


Jul 24 1985

Mallanna Vs. Abdul Nabi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Jul-24-1985

Reported in: AIR1986Kant221; ILR1985KAR3835; 1985(2)KarLJ364

years i.e. up to 9-2-1963. The two Courts below have held that the plaintiff executed Exhibit D5 on 19-2-1960 i.e. ten days immediately after the last mortgage deed dated 9-2-1960.4. Exhibit D-5 is in Urdu. Its true


Jan 16 1990

Kamlabai W/O Manoharlalji Vs. Manoharlal S/O Mangilalji Lalwani and or ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Decided on: Jan-16-1990

Reported in: 1991(0)MPLJ342

challenge the order dated 31-8-1987, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Neemuch, in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 1987, thereby upholding the order dated 21-4-1987, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Neemuch, in Criminal Case No. … by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Neemuch, in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 1987, thereby upholding the order dated 21-4-1987, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Neemuch, in Criminal Case No. 20 of 1986, holding the complaint


Loading chart…

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


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial