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.

Advocate - 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.

Apr 13 1966

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


Apr 13 1966

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


Feb 28 1958

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

Mar 03 2003

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)


Aug 17 2017

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


Aug 28 2001

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.


Feb 19 2002

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


Feb 17 2005

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


Sep 26 1997

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


Jan 14 1990

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
  • Last »
Loading chart…

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


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial