Content - Judgment Search Results
“ the Contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners That Vs. Neena L ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Mar-02-2013
have passed the Punjab State Teachers Eligibility Test (in short 'PSTET').is illegal and not sustainable. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfills all the eligibility conditions as has been specified
“ the Next Contention of the Counsel for the Vs. State of Punjab and ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Mar-02-2013
Education'. It has been asserted that part of the corrigendum providing for this qualification cannot thus, sustain. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the notification dated 23.8.2010 specifically
“that the Contents of Para No.4 of Writ Vs. State of Haryana and Oth ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
by the respondent State in para 4 and 5 of the written statement, read as under:- “That the contents of para No.4 of writ petition are legal. However, the petitioner is liable to refund the TDS amount
18-section briefs on any result in this list
“The MaIn Contention Raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Vs. State of ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
plea of petitioner-complainant, by means of impugned judgment dated 18.5.2012, which, in substance, is as under:- “The main contention raised by the Ld. counsel for the complainant/appellant is that the Ld. lower Court has not offered sufficient
“The Contention of the Gram Panchayat Is That the C.O. Has Passed Vs ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
That application was allowed vide the impugned order 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 impugned order in the absence of the interested
“this Contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners May Be Vs. Shyam ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
of Medical Sciences (PGIMS).at Rohtak, with interest and 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 of duty is also the same, as such,
“that the Contents of Para No. 2 of the Civil Writ Petition Are Vs. ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
of the reply on merits of the written statement dated 18.01.2007 which reads as follows: - “That the contents of para No.2 of the Civil Writ Petition are wrong hence denied. The disputed land does not exist
Raj Dutta & Ors. Vs.lambda Content India Private Limited & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2019
Mr.P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Satish Kishanchandari, Mr.Parag Khandhar & Mr.Sohil Shah & Mr.Tejas Patel, Advs. versus LAMBDA CONTENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Aayushi Sharma, Mr.Nandish Vyas, Mr.Joran
Indian Potash Ltd. Vs.media Contents and Communication Services (India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2019
K. Makkar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Ms. Saumya Gupta & Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advs. Versus MEDIA CONTENTS AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ANR. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh
Kurios Finvest Llp Vs Reliance Creative And Content Solutions Llp
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2025
No. 7, College Lane, Chennai - 600006. Email Id:[email protected] .. Applicant & .. Plaintiff Vs. 1.M/s.Reliance Creative And Content Solutions LLP, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.Pushpak Shah, 8th Floor, 803/804, Lotus Grandeur, Veera Desai Road, Andheri
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free