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.

Content - 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 to open GPT-powered briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results - plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Mar 02 2013

“ the Contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners That Vs. Neena L ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Mar-02-2013

(in short 'PSTET').is illegal and not sustainable. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfills


Mar 02 2013

“ the Next Contention of the Counsel for the Vs. State of Punjab and ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Mar-02-2013

the corrigendum providing for this qualification cannot thus, sustain. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of


Aug 20 2013

“that the Contents of Para No.4 of Writ Vs. State of Haryana and Oth ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Aug-20-2013

5 of the written statement, read as under:- “That the contents of para No.4 of writ petition are legal. However, the


Turn these results into brief-ready notes

Nov 29 2012

“The MaIn Contention Raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Vs. State of ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Nov-29-2012

dated 18.5.2012, which, in substance, is as under:- “The main contention raised by the Ld. counsel for the complainant/appellant is that


Jul 10 2013

“The Contention of the Gram Panchayat Is That the C.O. Has Passed Vs ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Jul-10-2013

on 13.07.1990. Relevant portion of the order reads thus: “The contention of the Gram Panchayat is that the C.O.has passed the


Jan 21 2014

“this Contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners May Be Vs. Shyam ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Jan-21-2014

other consequential benefits i.e.revision of pay w.e.f.1.1.1996. It was primary contention of the petitioners that qualifications are the same and nature


Mar 31 2014

“that the Contents of Para No. 2 of the Civil Writ Petition Are Vs. ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Mar-31-2014

statement dated 18.01.2007 which reads as follows: - “That the contents of para No.2 of the Civil Writ Petition are wrong


Feb 01 2019

Raj Dutta & Ors. Vs.lambda Content India Private Limited & Ors.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Feb-01-2019

Matched in: Parties Raj Dutta & Ors. Vs.lambda Content India Private Limited & Ors.


May 02 2019

Indian Potash Ltd. Vs.media Contents and Communication Services (India ...

Court: Delhi

Decided on: May-02-2019

Ms. Saumya Gupta & Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advs. Versus MEDIA CONTENTS AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ANR. ...Respondents Through:


Jan 29 2013

“there Is a Force in the Contention of Learned Defence Counsel. No V ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Jan-29-2013

under (Para 7) :- “There is a force in the contention of learned defence counsel. No doubt, in the FIR and


  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

Try AI Brief & Semantic Search - 7 days free


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial