Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.46 seconds)Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Shri Anur Kumar Jain vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 29 March, 2011
To assert
so, reliance is placed upon decisions in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander
& Anr. 2012 (9) SCC 460; Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2013 (11) SCC 476; State of Karnataka vs. M.
Devendrappa & Anr. 2002 (3) SCC 89; Shri Anur Kumar Jain vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation Order and Judgment dated 29.03.2011 in
W.P.(Crl.)
K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palaanisamy on 30 March, 2011
No. 80/2010 (D.B.); K. K. Belusamy vs. N. Palanisamy 2011
(11) SCC 275; Dharambir vs. CBI 2008 (148) DLT 289 and Ashok
Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim 2011 (4) SCC 402. Finally, it was
submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and
these petitions deserves to be dismissed.
Dharambir Khattar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 May, 2009
No. 80/2010 (D.B.); K. K. Belusamy vs. N. Palanisamy 2011
(11) SCC 275; Dharambir vs. CBI 2008 (148) DLT 289 and Ashok
Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim 2011 (4) SCC 402. Finally, it was
submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and
these petitions deserves to be dismissed.
Ashok Tshering Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 25 February, 2011
No. 80/2010 (D.B.); K. K. Belusamy vs. N. Palanisamy 2011
(11) SCC 275; Dharambir vs. CBI 2008 (148) DLT 289 and Ashok
Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim 2011 (4) SCC 402. Finally, it was
submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and
these petitions deserves to be dismissed.