Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (2.13 seconds)
Documents citing Sonvir @ Somvir Thr. His Father Pappu ... vs State Nct Of Delhi on 10 December, 2014

Chinnasamy vs .

486 [Sonvir V. State [NCT of Delhi]] and observed that ''Section 5 of the Act is not mandatory but, is directory and affirms the bona fides of the sample-taking and eliminates the possibility of fabrication of evidence.'' 197 Section 2[a] of the Identification of Prisoners' Act, 1920 [Central Act 33 of 1920] as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 2010, defines ''measurements'' and it includes finger impressions and foot-print impressions.
Madras High Court Cites 111 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

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
1