Dialect - Judgment Search Results

Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2011(10)SCC173; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)230; 2012(1)MLJ(Crl)356; AIR2012SCW494; 2012(1)MWN(Cri)184; 2012CriLJ1043

doctor issuing such certificate was busy with his professional work. Kamlesh Rani had made a statement in local dialect of mixed Hindi/Punjabi and PW-2 had recorded her statement in Hindi script. Here again, it was pointed out

Rajesh Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2005SC2540; 2005(2)ESC291; [2005(106)FLR411]; JT2005(6)SC12; (2005)5SCC172; 2005(3)SLJ164(SC)

feeble attempt was made by the counsel on behalf of the State respondents that different districts have different dialects and, therefore, it would be necessary to restrict the selection to candidates conversant and fluent in those regional

Kailash Chand Sharma Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2002SC2877; [2002(95)FLR689]; [2003(1)JCR87(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC591; 2002LabIC2943; 2002(5)SCALE512; (2002)6SCC562; [2002]SUPP1SCR317; 2003(1)SLJ121(SC); (2002)3UPLBEC2281

State of Rajasthan is the largest state in the country and has diverse climatic and socio-cultural zones. The dialects/languages vary according to the topography of the region ranging from the Thar Desert of the West to the

Harshendra Choubisa and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2002SC2897; 2002(4)AWC3286(SC); [2002(95)FLR285]; JT2002(6)SC553; 2002LabIC2964; 2002(5)SCALE441; (2002)6SCC393; [2002]SUPP1SCR309; 2002(3)SCT822(SC); 2002(3)SLJ219(SC);

Sewaks'.9. Secondly, it is submitted that the candidates hailing from the 'local area' know the local language and dialect well and therefore in a better position to mingle and communicate with the local populace which in turn

Rohit Singhal and ors. Vs. Principal, Jawahar N. Vidyalaya and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2003SC2088; JT2002(10)SC565; (2003)1SCC687; [2002]SUPP5SCR515

The petitioner's grievance or the explanation for their having rendered misfit at the transferee JNV is that the dialect and language commonly spoken there was Malayalam as amongst the students and teachers but there was no teacher

Nandini Sundar and ors. Vs. State of Chattisgarh

Court: Supreme Court of India

many other states have also appointed SPOs, and Naxals oppose the SPOs because their familiarity with local people, dialect and terrain make them effective against them; that the total number of SPOs appointed in Chattisgarh, and approved

Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)686; 2000(3)ALLMR(SC)251; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)363; 2001(1)BLJR499; 2000CriLJ2433; II(2000)DMC1SC; JT2000(5)SC617; 2000(4)SCALE176; (2000)6SCC224; 2000(2)LC1113(SC; [2000] 3 SCR 1081

different religious faiths, born in different castes, sex or Sub-section s in the society speaking different languages and dialects in different religions and provided a secular Constitution to integrate all sections of the society as a united

Ahmedabad Women Action Group (Awag) and ors. Vs. Union of India

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1997SC3614; II(1997)DMC224SC; (1997)3GLR1882; JT1997(3)SC171; 1997(2)SCALE381; (1997)3SCC573; [1997]2SCR389; 1997(1)LC548(SC)

professing different religious faiths, born in different castes, sex or Sub-sections in the society speaking different languages and dialects in different regions and provided a secular Constitution to integrate all sections of the society as a united

Pannalal Bansilal Patil and Others Etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh an ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1996IAD(SC)684; AIR1996SC1023; 1996(3)ALT1(SC); JT1996(1)SC516; 1996(4)KarLJ252; 1996(1)SCALE405; (1996)2SCC498; [1996]1SCR603; 1996(1)LC265(SC)

professing different religious faiths, born in different castes, sex or sub-sections in the society speaking different languages and dialects in different regions and provided secular Constitution to integrate all sections of the society as a united Bharat.

Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2001SC1910; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)700; 2001ALLMR(Cri)713(SC); 2001(49)BLJR1330; 2001CriLJ1832; 2001(2)Crimes150(SC); (2001)2GLR1148; JT2001(4)SC262; 2001(3)SCALE29; (2001)5SCC4

frustrate the right of the accused accrued in his favour under the Mandates of the Stature by several dialectic tactics or even in contingency, like, absence of the Presiding Officer of the Court or non-availability of the