The State - Judgment Search Results

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

Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur

energy requirement for development purposes to a great extent. The predicament of the review petitioner company is that the State Government has denied to allot several parts in the parcels of land being the area prohibited in view … question in village Aswari has been constructed on the 'angore' land. It is unfortunate that 'angore' lands in the State are being encroached upon or being allotted for raising housing colonies, schools, shops, comercial complexes and for various

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. State and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (1966)ILLJ488Ker

to 6 in this appeal were the petitioners in that original petition. Respondent 2 in the original petition, the State of Kerala, is respondent 1 before us. There is also an intervenor. He was brought on record in … be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.6. The question as to whether the protection of Article 16(1) extends beyond the stage of initial appointment was

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

Court: Delhi

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

Judge in case FIR No.287/99 registered with P.S. Mehrauli, commonly known as 'Jessica Lal Murder Case'.2. In Crl.R.596/2000, the State prays to set aside the discharge of accused No.1 Manu Sharma, accused No.2 Vikas Yadav, accused No.3 Amardeep … Sharma was also discharged of all the offences alleged against him.9. Mr.S.K.Saxena, learned Special Public Prosecutor, arguing for the State in Crl.R.596/2000 has strenuously urged this Court to order framing of charge under Section 120-B IPC for commission

Ramu Vs. State By

Court: Karnataka

AGED ABOUT20YEARS, R/AT METARIDODDI VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI A.V. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY JNANABHARATHI POLICE-56060. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) … THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742)

Raja Vs. State By

Court: Karnataka

AGED ABOUT20YEARS, R/AT METARIDODDI VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI A.V. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY JNANABHARATHI POLICE-56060. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) … THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742)

Punith Vs. State By

Court: Karnataka

BANGALORE - 560 072. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARUN G, ADV.) - 2 - CRL.P No.7585 of 2021 AND:1. STATE BY K.R. PETE TOWN POLICE, MANDYA (REPRESENTED BY STATE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX) 2. RAGHAVENDRA S/O

State By Vs. Mithun Kumar

Court: Karnataka

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.347 OF2016BETWEEN: State by Assistant Superintendent of Police Puttur, D.K., Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor Bengaluru - 574201. ...Appellant (By Sri. Abhijith K.S - HCGP) AND:1. Mithun Kumar S/o. Shivaram Naik … 1860 besides Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. This appeal has been filed by the State seeking intervention by considering the grounds urged therein and to set-aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the

State By Vs. T Manjunath

Court: Karnataka

is just and proper to return the entire charge sheet papers to the Investigating Agency with liberty to the State to proceed further in accordance with law and to file a charge sheet afresh after obtaining necessary sanction

Aslam vs State

Court: Delhi

QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/01/2026 at 13:41:07 Counsel for the State, on instructions from the Jail Authorities, submits that no punishment ticket has, in fact, been issued against the

State vs Vinod Kumar Ahuja

Court: Delhi

of fine, the appellant/convict was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 2. The State has filed the cross appeal, being Crl. A. No. 442/2023, titled “State v. Vinod Kumar Ahuja”, assailing the … completely support the prosecution case and was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned APP on behalf of the State. 5. PW-6 HC Arvind Kumar He was working as Duty Officer at the relevant time. He proved DD