Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The State Of Telangana, Hyderabad vs Mir Jaffar Ali Khan, Hyderabad 3 Others on 20

play. In the facts of this case, Article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable. 40. It is contended by learned senior counsel for plaintiffs

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of wp_24408_2021 16 SN,J India and observed at Paras 39, 40 and 41 which ... that writs under Article 226 are maintainable for asserting contractual rights against the state, or its instrumentalities, as defined under Article 12 of the Indian

maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and observed at Paras 39, 40 and 41 which read as under ... that writs under Article 226 are maintainable for asserting contractual rights against the state, or its instrumentalities, as defined under Article 12 of the Indian

maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and observed at Paras 39, 40 and 41 which read as under ... that writs under Article 226 are maintainable for asserting contractual rights against the state, or its instrumentalities, as defined under Article 12 of the Indian

maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and observed at Paras 39, 40 and 41 which read as under ... that writs under Article 226 are maintainable for asserting contractual rights against the state, or its instrumentalities, as defined under Article 12 of the Indian

maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and observed at Paras 39, 40 and 41 which read as under ... Article 226 wp_8906_2021 16 SN,J are maintainable for asserting contractual rights against the state, or its instrumentalities, as defined under Article

maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and observed at Paras 39, 40 and 41 which read as under ... Article 226 wp_18129_2021 16 SN,J are maintainable for asserting contractual rights against the state, or its instrumentalities, as defined under Article

other branch in Karnataka or Kerala, it would not be permissible, under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, for the petitioner to invoke ... 0590/2012] , it was held as follows:- "40. Even in the context of Article 226(2) of the Constitution this Court adopted the same

other branch in Karnataka or Kerala, it would not be permissible, under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, for the petitioner to invoke ... 0590/2012] , it was held as follows:- "40. Even in the context of Article 226(2) of the Constitution this Court adopted the same