IMPHAL, India, May 18 -- Manipur High Court issued the following order on April 16: An adjournment slip has been circulated by Mr. Leo N., learned counsel for the petitioners, which is not opposed by Ms. Malemleima H., learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. A. Bheigya Meitei, learned junior Government counsel for the State respondents. At his request, list this case on 02-06-2026. Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication....
IMPHAL, India, May 18 -- Manipur High Court issued the following order on April 16: Mr.M.Rendy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be taken up on some other day and he has taken consent of the other side. List on 16.6.2026. Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication....
IMPHAL, India, May 18 -- Manipur High Court issued the following order on April 16: [1] Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the matter may be listed after two weeks due to personal difficulty. [2] Mr. A. Vashum, learned G.A. for the State respondent, has no objection. [3] List this case on 02.06.2026. Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication....
IMPHAL, India, May 18 -- Manipur High Court issued the following order on April 16: [1] Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India instructed by Mr. Kartikay Agrawal, learned counsel, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General of Manipur instructed by Mr. O. Ratankumar, learned State counsel, Mr. Dimalkumar Haobam, learned State counsel, Mr. I. Amri, learned State counsel, Ms. Sharmila Rahman, learned State counsel, Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned Additional Advocate General of Manipu...
RANCHI, India, May 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 16: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, for the enforcement of her service benefits, including unpaid postretirement dues, arrears of salary under the 6th Central Pay Revision, and differential salary under the 7th Central Pay Revision. The petitioner asserts that she is entitled to these benefits with interest. 3. The petitioner was appointe...
RANCHI, India, May 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 16: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners, challenge tender notice dated 20.12.2025 by claiming that such tender relates to undertaking public works on the petitioners' property. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have already a decree from the civil court and, therefore, the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioners' property...
RANCHI, India, May 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 16: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs: (A) For direction upon the respondents to grant and make payment of difference of arrears of salary with interest to the petitioners for the following period, as the petitioners are legally entitled as per the law :- (i) From November 1971 to 31.3....
RANCHI, India, May 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 16: 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. 2. Prayer is allowed. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication....
RANCHI, India, May 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 16: 1. By way of filing this writ application, the petitioners pray for following relief: "(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding/directing the respondents to get the encroachment removed from the public road leading to the lands and houses of the petitioners at Sarveshwari Ashram in Thana no. 26, Mauza-Nawadih in Chas (M) Police Station in Bokaro District, which has been encr...
RANCHI, India, May 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 16: 1. None appears for the petitioner even on repeated calls. Even when the case was posted for hearing on 06.02.2025, the petitioner was not represented by her counsel. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein at paras-11 to 13 it has been explained as to why the claim of the petitioner should not be allowed. 3. Having regard to the averments made in paras-11 to 13 of the counter-affidavit...