Sumedh Singh Saini vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 September, 2020
petitioner has been provided with Z+ security for his protection and
has the resources to engage best of the legal brains whereas the poor
complainant
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 465 (0.92 seconds)Sumedh Singh Saini vs State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2020
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali, and that in spite of Z+
security the petitioner has vanished from the State. The relevant part of
the said
Lalta Prasad Pandey vs Priyanka Vadra & Others on 10 January, 2020
directing the government of Bharat, respondent no.2 to withdraw the Z plus security cover provided to Ms. Priyanka Vadra, respondent ... writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the order granting Z plus security cover awarded to the respondent no.1 by union of Bharat
Dr Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 22 September, 2020
Z Plus category
2. Z category
3. Y plus category
4. Y category
5. X category
The CPIO, MHA, IS-I Div., VIP Security Unit ... However, in
the said reply certain clarifications on providing categorised security (Z+, Z, Y+, Y
and X) to individuals was provided in the response.
Dissatisfied
Tarun Gogoi vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 22 January, 2020
State of Assam whose Z+ SPG Category
security was downgraded to Z+CRPF Category in the year 2017 which was continued till ... same was further downgraded only to Z Category. Being aggrieved upon
the said down gradation of the security cover, the petitioner has moved this writ
Dr.S.V.Mohammed Haris vs The District Collector Kannur And ... on 8 September, 2020
Govt. Hospitals managing the Covid patients and
has identified 'Z Plus Apartments' as suitable space nearly 50 metres
away from the District Headquarters ... Prakashan, Tahsildar, Kannur have inspected the 'Z
Plus Apartment' building on 25.06.2020. The Security Person present
there, with the permission of the petitioners
A.V.Subba Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 December, 2020
State enumerated the
circumstances for providing security cover known as "General
Guidelines for providing security", are as follows:
"1. While ... such as those who are in X, Y
and Z category should be provided security at State's cost.
5. If protection is sought
Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 4 September, 2020
been provided various security
covers (like X, Y, Z, Z plus etc or any other security cover) from time to time
by the Ministry
P. Thavasiraj vs Virgin Manufacturing Industries ... on 18 August, 2020
asset' as defined
under Section 2(1)(z)(c) of the SARFAESI Act and a security interest was
created over the property under Section
Ajjuguttu Ragunatha Reddy vs The State Of Ap on 3 January, 2020
Committee. The
prescribed Rules/Guidelines for X, Y, Y+, Z and Z+ category and other
protectees, specifically stipulates that "existence of threat ... such as those who are in X, Y and Z category
should be provided security at State's cost.
5. If protection is sought