Start a new topic
Started by Anonymous User at 5:45 a.m. on 05 April 14
sfiygjoejbolboppo, <a href="http://www.kjwogdjgcf.com/">dqvzfgatqj</a>
Started by Anonymous User at 12:04 a.m. on 03 April 14
vrcrtjoejbolboppo, http://www.qriyigydsa.com/ rstagrzsmq
Started by Anonymous User at 5:11 p.m. on 19 March 14
fkqvpjoejbolboppo, <a href="http://www.bpvfmfptyc.com/">vgliazhebl</a> , [url=http://www.epwoygxvjn.com/]knpvodrxay[/url], http://www.ysnrecdxpg.com/ vgliazhebl
Started by Anonymous User at 4:20 p.m. on 08 March 14
Started by Anonymous User at 11:36 a.m. on 02 March 14
indiankanoon.org/1258321 is not available
Started by nmreddy93 at 2:36 p.m. on 01 March 14
Most of companies like Infrastructure Companies take a land on lease and construct airport and roads or companies take land on lease for long period and at the end of lease period transfer the same constructed building also owner of land i have to know treatment of capital expenditure incurred on such leasehold land
Started by Anonymous User at 10:18 a.m. on 18 Feb. 14
ashok kumar saxena v/s state of madhya pradesh 2012 volume -9 supreme court cases page no-750
Started by Anonymous User at 10:01 a.m. on 05 Feb. 14
Riyaz s/o. Razak Menon vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No.3196/2010) (supra), it appears that alprazolam and diazepam powders were seized from the accused. The order shows that it was argued that the said substances do not come within the ambit of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and that the said substance seized from the manufacturer therein may fall within the ambit of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and therefore, NDPS Act could not be applicable.
Started by Rajeev Ranjan Pathak at 6:09 p.m. on 02 Feb. 14
Item No. 40 Court No. 5 Section II A
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Record Of Proceedings
Petition(s) for Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 9967/2011
(From The Judgment and Order dated 22/07/2011 in CRLM No. 13116/2009 of The High Court of Patna)
Sanjay Kumar Petitioner(s)
State Of Bihar & Anr. Respondent(s)
(with Appln (s) for stay and Office Report)
Date: 22/11/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
Hon'ble Dr. Justice B. S. Chauhan
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rituraj Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Mayur Chaturvedi Adv.
For Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv.
Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following
List the Matter for final hearing on a non miscellaneous day.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (M. S. NEGI)
Court Master Court Master
Decided on 28.01.2014
In such a chaotic situation, any “Arzi”, “Farzi”,
half-baked lawyer under the label of “proxy counsel”, a
4phrase not traceable under the Advocates Act, 1961 or under
the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 etc., cannot be allowed to
abuse and misuse the process of the court under a false
impression that he has a right to waste public time without
any authority to appear in the court, either from the
litigant or from the AOR, as in the instant case. The AOR,
with impunity was disdainful towards the order of this Court
directing him to appear in the court. He had also not filed
any appearance for the counsel who had appeared, nor the said counsel disclosed his name.
Started by Rajeev Ranjan Pathak at 5:20 p.m. on 02 Feb. 14
C.A. No. 628 of 2003
ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 628 OF 2003
RAMNIVAS VYAS & ORS. Appellant (s)
H. SRINIVASA BHATI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With office report )
Date: 18/09/2013 This Appeal was called on for hearing
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA
For Appellant(s) Mr.Manu Shanker Mishra, Adv.
Mr. A. Subba Rao,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the
(Phoolan Wati Arora)
[signed judgment is placed on the file]