Thingalmukhi - V. Dakshinamoorthi* - Arakkallan Mukkakkallan (Malayalam) (Vinyl)

Author: Durr Category: Classical

9 thoughts on “ Thingalmukhi - V. Dakshinamoorthi* - Arakkallan Mukkakkallan (Malayalam) (Vinyl)

  1. Shakalar Reply
    v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: Y.K. Sabharwal, Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ. JUDGMENT Y.K. Sabharwal, J. Natural resources are the assets of entire nation. It is the obligation of all concerned including Union Government and State Governments to .
  2. Sharr Reply
    Mukesh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [Review Petition (CRL.) No. of in Criminal Appeal No. of ] ASHOK BHUSHAN J. 1. The petitioner by this review petition filed under Article of the Constitution of India prays to review the final judgment dated passed by this Court by which Criminal Appeal No. of has been dismissed.
  3. Vokazahn Reply
    Nov 09,  · രാജ്യത്തി െൻറ സാമൂഹിക കെട്ടുറപ്പിനെ തകർക്കുകയും അപകടകരമായ.
  4. Mokasa Reply
    The counsel also relied on the decision in Union of India v. Thamisharasi and others (() 4 SCC ). The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the order dated in derteforcioucarbuetalejefanmope.coinfo of , bail was granted to accused No While granting bail to accused No.4, this Court held thus: "4.
  5. JoJojora Reply
    Jan 29,  · 7. Citing the decisions of this Court in K. Anbazhagan v. Supt. of Police 3 SCC and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat 5 SCC , Mr Sharma urged that in the interest of justice, he should be allowed to continue with the transfer petition, despite the preference indicated by .
  6. Maugrel Reply
    Nov 09,  · Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam showed disappointed over the Supreme Courts Verdict in the Ayodhya Land Dispute Case.
  7. Grogal Reply
    In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Narender it is held: In view of the express provision of Section of the Negotiable Instruments Act, , a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section , for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved. Therefore.
  8. Grorisar Reply
    PETITIONER: KANUMUKKALA KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/03/ BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR SUBBARAO, K. GUPTA, K.C. DAS CITATION: AIR SCR (7) ACT: Indian Penal Code, (Act 45 of ), ss. , Cheating-Public Service Commission, false .
  9. Dalar Reply
    இன்னாசெய்யாமை | Not doing Evil | அறத்துப்பால் | Virtue | thirukural,thirukkural,tirukural,tirukkural.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *