Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The petitioner Arvind Kumar Tiwari sought to set aside the 2016 selection of certain respondents under a government advertisement, alleging irregularities discovered via a Right to Information (RTI) request. The respondents argued that the petition was barred by laches, noting that the RTI …
The appellant, Smt. Soni and others, filed a first appeal against Order No. 104 of 2022 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a dispute with The New India Assurance Company Ltd. The appeal was listed for hearing, but no counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants to press the …
The appellant, Smt. Soni, filed a first appeal against Order No. 103 of 2022 passed by the Lucknow Thru. Branch Manager of New India Assurance Company Ltd. The appellant was represented by counsel Jagat Pal Singh, while the respondent was represented by counsel Inder Preet Singh Chadha. No counsel …
Petitioner Smt. Vimla Devi filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the proceedings against her. The State filed a charge sheet on 13 August 2024. The petitioner, through counsel, sought to withdraw the writ petition, requesting liberty to pursue other legal remedies against the …
Dr. Mukesh Kumar filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the proceedings against him. The State filed a charge sheet on 13‑08‑2024. The petitioner, through counsel, sought to withdraw the writ petition, requesting liberty to pursue other remedies against the charge sheet. The court, …
The appellant, Giresh Mohan Srivastava and others, filed a second appeal (Defective No. 34 of 2016) before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The appellant’s counsel, M.A. Siddiqui, was listed but no representative appeared to prosecute the appeal. The court was required to determine whether …
Petitioners Rajesh Kumar Mishra and others filed a writ petition (WRIT-A No. 2442 of 2023) before the Allahabad High Court. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press the petition, while the respondents were represented. The court noted the lack of prosecution of the petition. …
