Search Results Page

Search Results

11 - 20 of 64 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Sonvir @ Somvir Thr. His Father Pappu ... vs State Nct Of Delhi on 10 December, 2014

Seema Gupta vs Sunny Talwani on 26 April, 2023

Moreover, plea of alibi was not taken at the earliest stage. Respondent, neither in Statement of Defence nor in her evidence by affidavit, had taken this plea. It arouses suspicion when taken at belated stage, in a last ditch attempt to support the plea of nonexecution of the agreement in the face of credible evidence led by the Claimant. Respondent throughout the proceedings had simply denied execution of Agreement to Sell without raising plea of alibi or examining any of the witnesses to prove her alleged trip to Panchkula. It shows nothing but an afterthought defence. Judicial Pronouncements relied on by the Claimant namely Mohinder Singh v State, reported at AIR 1953 Cri LJ 1761; Lakban Singh @ Pappu vs The State of NCT of Delhi, reported at Cr. Appeal No. 166/1999, are with regard to consequences flowing from the plea of alibi in criminal matters being found to be false. Even though analogy of adverse inference to reject the other defences as well can be drawn, but in view of foregoing discussion and reasons, the plea of alibi as taken by Respondent deserves to be rejected on merits as well. In light of foregoing discussion, I hold that the Agreement to Sell dated 26.10.2015 was duly executed between Claimant and the Respondent with sum of Rs.40,00,00/-, being paid as part sale consideration and the denial thereof by Respondent is wrongful, with ulterior motive to somehow avoid, deny and resile from the bargain entered into.‖
Delhi High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Mohd. Suleman vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 May, 2023

Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in W.P. (CRL) 21/2023  Ram Sagar @ Sagar vs. State NCT of Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 748/2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA W.P.(Crl) 279/2023 Page 2 of 6 Signing Date:25.05.2023 16:45:46 NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023:DHC:3679  Surender alias Bhola vs. State of G.N.C.T. of Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 605/2022  Sultan @ Rajesh vs. State of GNCT of Delhi in W.P. (CRL)764/2022  Vinod @ Vinoda vs. The State (Govt of N.C.T. Delhi) in W.P. (CRL) 89/2023  Anil Kumar vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) in W.P. (CRL)
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Bhatnagar - Full Document

Manish Naresh Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 July, 2018

Mr. Kavade, therefore, submitted that the person arrested on the allegations of commission of the offence punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty, was not covered under Section 4 because it mentioned a restricted term of sentence and life imprisonment or death penalty would not be covered. According to him, Section 5 of the said Act was attracted and it was necessary to URS 42 of 64 ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:37:46 ::: 43 APEAL 454-14 Judgment.doc take permission from the learned Magistrate before taking fingerprints of the accused. This contention is in terms repelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent Judgment delivered on 02/07/2018 in the case of Sonvir Singh Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi 3. In the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has squarely held that the person who is arrested for commission of offence punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty, was covered under Section 4 of the said Act. Hence, in the instant case before us, we are satisfied that Section 4 of the said Act was applicable and the concerned police officers were well within their rights to take the fingerprints of the Appellant. These fingerprints were sent for comparison with the chance prints.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S V Kotwal - Full Document
Previous   1 2   3 4 5 6 7 Next