Webvs state (nct of delhi) & anr. (with appln. (s) for stay and office report) mr. jagjit singh chhabra mr. d. s. mahra 6. crl.a. no. 1873/2008 iib adjd harbhajan singh & ors. vs state of punjab & anr. (with office report) (for 24-03-2015) ms. indra sawhney mr. kuldip singh mr. anis ahmed khan 7. crl.a. no. 1959/2008 ii adjd ran singh vs state of ... http://courtverdict.com/supreme-court-of-india/public-service-commission-uttaranchal-vs-mamta-bisht-ors
Landmark judgment on discharge of accused and framing …
WebSep 4, 2024 · ..., Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 25.05.2011 (Annexure P-7) to submit that the said judgment has been upheld by the Apex Court and the petitioner is entitled for... KAUSHAL KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS 15 Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Date: Jul 9, 2024 Cited By: 0 ...petitioner, from the date he … WebJan 31, 2024 · Case Title: Bhupinder Singh Vs Unitech Ltd. Click here to read more [Bikram Singh Majithia] The Supreme Court today directed the State of Punjab not to take coercive steps against Akali Dal Leader Bikram Singh Majithia. Majithia has been booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. templechurch.net newport news va
State of U.P. & Others v/s Jeet S. Bisht & Another - LawyerServices
Web(Bhupinder Singh) Duty Judge NW/Rohini/Delhi 15.04.2024 . State vs. Madhuvender Singh & Ors. FIR no. 258/16 PS Maurya Enclave U/s. 419/420/34/120B IPC 15th April, 2024 This is an application filed on behalf of applicant/accused Madhuvender Singh U/s. 439 Cr. P.C. for grant of interim bail. WebJul 10, 2008 · On 4-12-1990 Bhupinder Singh and Manjit kaur got solemnized their marriage by exchanging garlands before the holy granth sahib. Then she stayed with accused in sector 22-C Chandigarh. Accused has also taken loan of Rs.5000 from a society at Panchkula in May 1991 where he had nominated as her wife. WebJun 9, 2016 · For this reason too, the case cannot be sent back to State Commission at this late stage. Consequently, this argument must be eschewed out of consideration. 6. We also clap no importance to the submission made by the counsel for the OP that the interest should be given at the agreed rate between the parties. In K.A. Nagamani Vs. trending on showmax