So Decides - Judgment Search Results

Decided On: 10.02.2012 Vs. Mcd and ors

Court: Delhi

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2198/2011 Decided on: 10.02.2012 IN THE MATTER OF GOMTI PRASAD AND ORS.

Decided On: 03.02.2012 Vs. Commissioner Mcd and anr

Court: Delhi

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3718/2011 Decided on: 03.02.2012 IN THE MATTER OF MOHD. IQBAL ..... Petitioner

Decided On: 01.04.2013 Vs. State of Haryana and Others

Court: Punjab and Haryana

PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. W.P.No.613 of 2013 (O&M) Decided on:01. 04.2013 Dhanbir ....................Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others

Decided on 24.09.2013 Vs. General Public

Court: Punjab and Haryana

FAO No.1358 OF20061 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1358 OF2006DECIDED ON2409.2013 Manohar Singh ..............Appellant...

Decided on : 27.05.2014 Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Court: Punjab and Haryana

OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19384 of 2012 Decided on : 27.05.2014 Jagdish Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State

Rsa No.791 of 2012 (Oandm) Vs. Ramauli Decided by the then Sub Judge I ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

suit No.891 Rs.No.791 o”2. of 1995 titled Dharampal versus Ramauli decided by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Palwal. The plaintiff

Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Deciding Authority and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1995CriLJ3380

made on 2-11-1993. The first respondent is described as 'the Deciding Authority and his Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, Mardas.'

“1. That Both the Parties Have Decided to Get their Marriage Vs.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

the settlement read as follows:-“1. That both the parties have decided to get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent in accordance