Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15142 (5.08 seconds)
Documents citing Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018

State vs . Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Cnr No. Dlct11 ... on 10 October, 2019

1.2 On the other side, the accused Rakesh Kumar's case is that he is innocent, he followed the established conventional official norms, the selection process was within the domain of experts vis a vis he has no role or influence decision for empanelment of Mehak Punjab Di; the allegations of criminal misconduct or paying the amount are false and fabricated. He has no role of defection of 9 persons. There has been official Plan of Action, accordingly it was acted upon. Accused Shiv Kumar took ground of plea of alibi, particularly that on alleged dates of filing of application on 27.4.2005 or filling in up of applications for formal passport on 5.9.2005, he was in his office in the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, being a government servant (Draftsman), he is not involved in any wrong. CBI officer has forcibly entered into his house, he was brought in custody and his articles were removed from his house without process of law.
Delhi District Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar Trivedi vs Nanda Rani Devi And Ors on 4 September, 2018

5. Late Kamala Prasad filed a written statement alleging forgery of the purported agreement to sell dated 02.11.1999 and alternatively of being taken advantage of being an alcoholic but admitting nevertheless that he was the owner of the said suit property. Issues would be framed. Since late Kamala Prasad had raised no dispute regarding ownership of the suit property no issue regarding ownership would been framed. There is therefore no documentary proof of ownership of the scheduled property. After the completion of the recording of the evidence of the Appellant and his two witnesses the evidence in affidavit of late Kamala Prasad would be filed and authenticated. However, he would pass away before his cross-examination and therefore substituted by the present Respondents as Defendants. Their attempt to file an independent written statement contrary to the written statement filed by late Kamala Prasad and be impleaded as defendants under Order 1 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) would be declined by the learned District Judge and thus the Respondent No.1 would file a written 7 R.F.A. No. 02 of 2014 Mahesh Kumar Trivedi v. Smt. Nanda Rani Devi & Ors.
Sikkim High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 1 - B R Pradhan - Full Document

Rama Devi vs Vidya Devi Ors on 8 January, 2025

(8) Summonses for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants. Joint written statement was filed by the defendants to the plaint wherein preliminary objections were taken that the present suit was filed after committing fraud with the defendants before the Registrar. The plaintiff's husband in connivance with the plaintiff took undue advantage of the old age CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narayan Devi And Ors vs Jagdish Jat And Ors on 14 April, 2026

49. As per financial statement given by PW-1 Smt. Naryan Devi, deceased is survived by his wife, three daughters and a son. Two daughters of the deceased are stated to be married. PW-1 in her MACT No. 147/22 Page. 26 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors cross examination admitted that the husband of married daughters are government servants. In these circumstances, the deceased is survived by three dependents.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vidhya Devi vs Rama Devi Ors on 8 January, 2025

(8) Summonses for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants. Joint written statement was filed by the defendants to the plaint wherein preliminary objections were taken that the present suit was filed after committing fraud with the defendants before the Registrar. The plaintiff's husband in connivance with the plaintiff took undue advantage of the old age CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. B.B. Patel vs Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta on 7 October, 2021

11. The appellant/tenant denied the enhancement of rent from Rs.221/­ per month to 1100/­ per month. It was stated that RCT Nos. 24/2017 & 03/2020 B.B. Patel vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Page No. 7 of 40 rent receipts filed on record Ex.PW1/14 to PW1/23 should not have been taken into consideration. The appellant/tenant in fact had executed these documents in good faith. The appellant/tenant denied the site plan Ex.PW1/1 filed by the landlord at the time of inception of the tenancy and the site plan Ex.PW1/24 filed at the time of filing of the eviction petition. The appellant stated that the report of the expert Ex.PW2/1 is totally incredible and should have been rejected. The appellant has asserted that the landlord was aware about the changes as he was frequently visiting the premises. The appellant stated that the impugned order suffers from various infirmities of law and liable to be set aside.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suman vs Racchna Rao on 26 September, 2024

63. The respondents no. 3 & 4 are directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the aforesaid amount immediately to petitioners in their respective saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities Page no.37 of total 38 MACP No. 5530/16 & 5531/16 Sheela & Ors., Suman & Ors. Vs. Rachna Rao & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next