Respond - Judgment Search Results
.....Respondents Vs. State of Punjab and Others
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Aug-05-2013
CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr.R.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Ms.Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 and 5. T.P.S.MANN, J.(Oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition
.....Respondents Vs. State of Haryana and Others
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr.Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Priyanka Dalal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1-State. T.P.S.MANN, J.(Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved of the remarks made against him by the Judicial Magistrate 1st
idrish Vs. --respondents
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
JUSTICE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR, JAIN,JUDGE Present: Mr.HaRs.Bunger, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.B.S.Rana, Addl.A.G, Punjab Mr.Sanjay Chauhan,Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. A.K.SIKRI, CJ.(Oral) Municipal Committee, Ferozepur, Jhirka, conducted an open auction on 21.3.2012, for allotting contract
18-section briefs on any result in this list
.....Respondents Vs. State of Punjab and Another
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jul-16-2013
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gurinderjit Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Pb for respondent No.1. Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate for respondent No.2. T.P.S.MANN, J.(Oral) The petitioner, who is unmarried sister of the husband of
.....Respondents Vs. State of Haryana Through Collector Yamuna Nagar a ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
RFA No.2666 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2666 of 2001 Date of Decision.26.11.2012 Parkashwati widow of Sh. Chetan Parshad and others .....Appellants Versus State...
Petitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2016
applicants that the pipelines with respect to drainage and water supply running through the portion owned by the respondents has been cut followed by an encroachment in the common area. Thus, the applicants are unable to use
Petitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-24-2016
1. This Petition is filed to amend the suit number in para 6 of the order passed in the above C.R.P, dated 31.8.2016 in which it is observed that ''the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,...
Pettioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2016
1. Based on the note dated 29.08.2016 prepared by the Registry, the matter came to be placed before this Bench, after it was duly actioned by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the very same date,...
Petitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2016
T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. Reference may be made to the earlier order dated 01.09.2016. It is heartening to note that in pursuant to the directions issued earlier by this Court, the parties were able to implement...
Petitioner Vs. Respondents
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
of 2015 and A.No.3273 of 2015, seeking the following reliefs: (i) Pass an order of injunction restraining the respondents from taking any steps pursuant to the Master Rental and Financing Agreement dated 01.04.2010, and consequently stay the
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 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