State vs . Shyam Singh And Ors. on 14 February, 2013
infirmities etc. However, at this stage,
there can not be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 274 (0.83 seconds)Cbi vs . 1) Zakir Hussain on 20 May, 2013
Cbi vs . 1) Zakir Hussain on 20 May, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH
Amar Singh Verma And Rupashi Verma & Ors vs . Praveen Kumar & Ors. on 16 November, 2013
akin to the proceedings in a civil suit.
Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence
on the part
Rohitasav Singh @ Rohtas vs . Yatender Parkash & Ors. on 7 November, 2013
akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further,
roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the
part
State vs . Anil Gupta Etc. on 31 October, 2013
This however does not mean that the Judge
should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence
Lucie Nayak vs . Ram Prakash on 17 August, 2013
akin to the
proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to
prove the rashness and negligence on the part
Sunita Nagar & Ors. vs . Aashid & Ors. on 5 October, 2013
akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further,
roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the
part
Rajeev Sharma vs . Amit Kumar & Ors on 8 August, 2013
akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further,
roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the
part
Cbi vs . Ss Rathore & Ors. on 10 May, 2013
court, at the stage
of charge to make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and
weigh the evidence ... This
however does not mean that the Judge should make a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and
weigh the evidence
1 Vijay Dubey & Ors. vs . Bharat Tomar on 1 April, 2013
akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving
enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part