Stated Value - Judgment Search Results

The Raj. State Mines and Minerals Ltd Vs. State and ors

Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur

can be provided to the public at large”.It is further stated that the Collector, Barmer, within whose territorial authority the land

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. State and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (1966)ILLJ488Ker

the Supreme Court extracted Article 16(1) of the Constitution and stated as follows:In deciding the scope and ambit of the fundamental

State Vs. Siddarth Vashisth and Manu Sharma and Others and Raja Chopra ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)829; 2001CriLJ2404; 90(2001)DLT548

facts, leading to filing of the above revision petitions, briefly stated, are that on the intervening night of 29th and 30th … stage the facts have to be taken at their face value only.33. The Apex Court in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi,

Punith Vs. State By

Court: Karnataka

registered agreement to sell dated 27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to … PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ZÉPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸À»/- ¸À»/- ¥Àæ«ÄüÀ gÀWÄÀ @ gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ (Emphasis added) 9. After about two months of the said undertaking/communication by

State By Vs. Mithun Kumar

Court: Karnataka

filed a complaint making allegations against the accused. It is stated in the complaint allegations that the victim was residing along

State By Vs. T Manjunath

Court: Karnataka

Commissioner of Transport referred the Notification dated 11.02.2010 and categorically stated that in terms of the said Notification, in respect of

Firoz Vs. State

Court: Delhi

is, on 13.01.2003. 2. We find that even in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C, he had given his

State Vs. Radhey Shyam @ Radhey

Court: Delhi

version before the Court was materially different from what she stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC before learned … No.117/08, FIR No.666/2007, under Section 363 IPC (Sections 366/376 IPC added later on), P.S.Nangloi, Delhi, the State is seeking leave to

State Vs. Bashir Ahmed Ponnu & Ors

Court: Delhi

false implication and they themselves appeared as defence witnesses. Bashir stated that he was doing the business of fruits at Sopore

State Vs. Mohd.Ahmad Hussain

Court: Delhi

offence punishable under Section 304 IPC (Part-I or Part-II not stated in the impugned decision); for the offence punishable under Section