Advocate - Judgment Search Results
Advocate General of Madras Vs. Amanullakhan, Advocate, Salem 1
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad162; 1967CriLJ551
is Sri Amanullakhan, a member of the Salem Bar, and the proceedings have been initiated by the learned Advocate General under S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 32 of 1952 and Art. 215 of the
Advocate-general of Madras Vs. Sri Amanullakhan, Advocate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ219
is Sri Amanullakhan, a member of the Salem Bar, and the proceedings have been initiated by the learned Advocate-General under Section 3 of the. Contempt of Courts Act, XXXII of 1952 and Article 215 of the Constitution
Advocate Cuddalore; Collector of South Arcot Vs. an Advocate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1958
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1321
Ramachandra Iyer J.1. The respondent is an advocate practising at Cuddalore, South Arcot District. He was appointed to the office of the Public Prosecutor for a
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Ashok Pandey, Advocate Vs. Satish Chandra Mishra (Presently, Advocate ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1294
the nature of quo warranto asking the respondent No. 1 as to how he accepted the appointment as Advocate General for the State of U.P. after being disqualified for the appointment as Judge of the High Court.(ii)
Re:mohit Chaudhary, Advocate Vs. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-17-2017
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.5 OF2017IN RE : MOHIT CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. A Noble Profession. An Officer of the Court. An Advocate-on-Record having the privilege
J.R. Parashar, Advocate and ors. Vs. Prasant Bhushan, Advocate and ors ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: AIR2001SC3395; 2001(49)BLJR2222; 2001CriLJ4207; 2001(4)Crimes217(SC); JT2001(7)SC189; 2001(5)SCALE524; (2001)6SCC735; 2002(1)LC62(SC)
who appeared in person, addressed the Court in a manner which not only will became their standing as Advocates of this Court but also belied their claims to be champions of this Court's dignity.10. The respondent No.
State of A.P. Rep. by the Advocate General, High Court of A.P. Vs. S. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT461
as a party-in-person and appeared as counsel in W.P. No. 7467/99 filed by one B. Srinivasa Rao, an advocate. Both these writ petitions were directed against the recommendations made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, of Members of
M.S. Rahi, Advocate Vs. Bhoop Singh, Advocate
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: (2005)140PLR122
and the same has been affirmed in appeal.4. It has been found that the landlord is a practicing Advocate in Punjab and Haryana High Court and one of his sons is practicing Advocate though unmarried. It has
State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Advocate General Vs. V. Prakasa Ra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ALD(Cri)702; 1997(5)ALT724
ORDERD. Reddeppa Reddi, J.1. The respondent-contemner (hereinafter referred to as the 'contemner') is an Advocate practising in the Courts of District Munsif and Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile) at Mulug and other
Shri Om Parkash Goyal, Advocate Vs. Shri Ram Krishan Chhokar, Advocate
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jan-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)99PLR410
a tenant in his own right and unless he is ejected from the demised premises in accordance with law, the landlord cannot force his entry into the property. Of course, the landlord has a right to inspect
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free