Skip to content
How to use Narrow results with filters
  1. Run a keyword search first to load the results page.
  2. Select Supreme Court, a High Court, or tribunal on the left.
  3. Optionally filter by decision year to focus on recent or historical cases.

Valid - Judgment Search Results

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Nov 22 1991

Haji Ismail Valid Mohmad and Others Vs. Sports Club in the Name of Uni ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Decided on: Nov-22-1991

Reported in: AIR1992SC1855; (1993)2GLR1145; JT1991(4)SC410; 1991(2)SCALE1184; (1992)1SCC315; 1992(1)LC210(SC)

Matched in: Parties Haji Ismail Valid Mohmad and Others Vs. Sports Club in the Name of Union Sport Club and Others


May 01 2013

“17. Validity or Otherwise of the Information Vs. State of Haryana a ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: May-01-2013

the correct CWP No.9186 of 2013 (O&M) -3- proposition and it was held in the following terms:- “17. Validity or otherwise of the Information Brochure and its binding nature has to be examined by the generality of


Oct 06 1972

The Board of Revenue, Hyderabad Vs. Validity Ram Krishnaiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Oct-06-1972

Reported in: AIR1973AP275

view that it is only in a case where the release deed is gratuitous it operates as a valid release deed. A document of release may be validly executed even if it recites some benefit to the


18-section briefs on any result in this list

Aug 01 2013

“10. a Suit Challenging the Validity of Departmental Proceedings Vs. ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Aug-01-2013

such marks are not with mala-fide intention and cannot be expunged and set aside. The adveRs.remarks are legal, valid and binding on the plaintiff. One of the issues framed by the learned trial court was “whether the


Apr 01 2014

The Petitioners Question the Validity of Vs. Savita Rani and Another . ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Apr-01-2014

14:47 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.6258 of 2014 [2].The petitioners question the validity of Notifications dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure P-2) and 16.07.2007 (Annexure P-4) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the


Mar 28 1955

In the Matter of Validation of a Document Dated 14-6-1947 Executed by ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-28-1955

Reported in: AIR1955Mad652

32. The application made under Section 31 of the Act was within the prescribed time and was a valid application under that section. As Section 32 clearly lays down what is incumbent on the Collector when an


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial