Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 3400 (2.14 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs P.P. Sharma, Ias And Anr on 2 April, 1991

Flemingo Travel Retail Limited vs Kannur International Airport Limited on 20 December, 2019

"29. It would be advantageous, in view of the striking analogy of the overall perspectives, to recount the relevant observations recorded therein and having a decisive bearing on the issue under scrutiny: (Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A. case, SCC pp. 504-11, paras 27, 29-30, 32 & 35-38) "27. The core issue, as we perceive, pertains to acceptance of the technical bid of Respondent 2 by the first respondent and we are required to address the same solely on the touchstone of eligibility criteria regard being had to the essential conditions. The decision on other technical aspects, as we are advised at present, is best left to the experts. We do not intend to enter into the said domain though a feeble attempt has been made on the said count.
Kerala High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S P Chaly - Full Document

Gulsher Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 27 May, 2019

Further the persons against whom malice is alleged must be arrayed as a respondents, for no findings of malice can be recorded behind his back (State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma: AIR 1991 SC 1260). While making such vague and bald allegations of malice, the appellant-writ petitioner has not even chosen to array the Minister, against whom such insinuations of malice are made, as a party-respondent to the writ petition.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - N S Dhanik - Full Document

Mukesh Jain @ Baddan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2019

Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar [(1987) 1 SCC 288 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 82]; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192 : AIR 1991 SC 1260]; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar [(2001) 2 SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275]; M. 8 MCRC.6606/2015 Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19]; Savita v. State of Rajasthan [(2005) 12 SCC 338 :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 September, 2019

In State of Bihar and another v. P.P. Sharma, IAS and another 1992 Supp. (1) 222, it was held that “The investigating officer is an arm of the law and plays a pivotal role in the dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. …..Enough power is therefore given to the police officer in the area of investigating process and granting them the court latitude to exercise its discretionary power to make a successful investigation…”.
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 2721 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next