Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (3.22 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Klshori Lal Minocha on 21 December, 1979

State vs Kishori Lal on 1 February, 2011

5. Heard the ld. APP for the State and ld. defence counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully. Ld. defence counsel would contend that the accused has been falsely implicated as the complainant / injured were from the Air Force and thus exercised their official influence upon the Police to falsely implicate the accused who was present with his TSR at the relevant time and the spot. Ld. defence counsel would further contend that the nature of injury as sustained by complainant Anil and injured Arvind will not be of such description as given in their MLCs Ex.C1 and C2 merely because of the hitting of their State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 8 of 12 two­wheeler scooter by the sudden turn of TSR by the accused unless and until the two wheeler scooter driver was driving the scooter at a fast speed and in a negligent manner. Ld. defence counsel would further contend that there was no opportunity for the complainant Anil and the injured Arvind to identify the accused at the spot as by the time the accused is alleged to have been apprehended, both the complainant and the injured have already been shifted to the LBS Hospital, therefore their identification of accused at the Hospital when the accused was produced before them by the Police cannot be said to be free from doubt and suspicion. Ld. defence counsel would further contend that the complainant and injured being officials of Air Force and the only other eye witness namely PW5 Ct. Santosh examined by the prosecution being a Police official and no independent public witness having been joined, the prosecution case cannot be said to be full proof against the accused. Ld. APP, on the other hand, would contend that through the unrebutted testimony of complainant PW2 Anil Kumar, the testimony of injured PW4 Arvind and of the independent witness PW5 Ct. Santosh, prosecution has conclusively established that complainant as well as the injured sustained injuries on the person due to rash and negligent driving of the TSR by accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Society Of Auditors And Etc. vs Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... on 1 October, 1999

Since the Impugned decision of the Institute and C and AG is intended to avoid malpractice by the bogus firms, to weed out the mushroom growth of bogus firms and to cull out the authenticate and correct information from Chartered Accountants taking note of the discretions that were experienced by the Institute and C and AG during the previous years, I am unable to appreciate the contention of Mr. Datar that the impugned requirement of details and documents are attracted by Heydon's rule, as the Institute and C and AG have not explained the mischief in the existing system, Similarly the argument of Mr. Datar, placing reliance on the decision in State of U.P. v. Kishori Lal . that the requirement of the details and documents by the Institute and C and AG has no authority of law, cannot be accepted, as the source of authority for such decision is distinctly traceable under the provisions of the Act read with Sections 226 and 619 of the Companies Act.
Madras High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Kunjukrishnan vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 2 December, 1982

State of U. P. v. Kishori Lal (AIR 1980 SC 680) was a case where in an auction sale the highest bidder was required to deposit the prescribed minimum. On failure of the highest bidder to do so, there was re-auction fetching smaller amount than the amount offered by the earlier auction purchaser. The State filed a suit against the highest bidder in the previous occasion for the loss suffered by it, which was found to be not maintainable in view of the fact that the bid offered was not sanctioned by the Excise Commissioner as required under Rule 357 (2) of the U. P. Excise Manual; and it was held that there was no concluded contract between the State and the auction purchaser to hold him liable for breach of contract. We do not think that any of the decisions cited above by the appellant-plaintiff would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jawahar Lal Jaiswal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 12 May, 1981

In State of U. P. v. Kishori Lal Minocha AIR 1980 SC 680, the question was whether Rule 357 of the Excise Manual was statutory rule. This High Court had held that the conditions mentioned in Rule 357 had never been published as required and they did not, therefore, have the force of law. Part II of the Excise Manual which includes Rule 357 contained provisions which were "commonly referred to as the rules." But were not really statutory rules and that it was "a sort of a book of guidance." The Supreme Court upheld this view of this court and held that Rule 357 not having been published in the gazette, did not have the force of law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Gulzar Singh Son Of Late Sohan Singh vs State Of U.P. Through The Principal ... on 7 November, 2005

6. Recently in the case of State of U.P. v. Gobardllan Lal the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the following observations to cautious the Courts while examining the plea of mala fide "even allegation of mala fide when made such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises."
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Sukh Yadav S/O Jag Deo Yadav, ... vs State Of U.P. Through The Principal ... on 10 April, 2007

However, I still require the learned Counsel for the petitioners to show and point out that part of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Puttl Lal (supra) where against it can be said that Rule 7 is inconsistent thereto. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners could not place anything from the entire judgment except showing that the Apex Court permitted the State Government to consider the case of regularisation of daily wage employees in accordance with 1998 Rules and when certain learned Counsel appearing for the employees sought to object some provisions of the Rules, the Apex Court observed that it is not considering the validity of the Rules at all and it is open to the respective parties to raise such dispute in an appropriate forum. The said observation only leaves it open to the employees concerned to challenge the validity of the Rule to be considered by the appropriate forum but this it by itself cannot be said to be an observation against any particular provision of 1998 Rules.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

P. Narayana Reddy vs Bekkan Potha Reddy on 4 September, 1997

12. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Manbodiwn Lal, AIR 19S7 SC 912 held that "It is well settled that additional evidence should not be permitted at the appellate stage in order to enable one of the parties to remove certain lacunae in presenting its case at the proper stage and to fill in gaps. Of course, the position is different where the appellate Court itself requires certain evidence to be adduced in order to enable it to do justice between the parties."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pilkhani Distillery & Chemical Works, ... vs Lt. Governor Etc. on 24 February, 1981

Reference was also invited to an unreported judgment in First Appeal No. 5 of 1962 decided on April 2, 1968 by Allahabad High Court and upheld in the Supreme Court in the case reported as State of U. P. vs. Kishori Lal Minocha. . In that case the High Court held that there was no completed contract between the parties and consequently there could be no breach of the terms and conditions and no cause of action for the suit arose in the absence of a completed contract which satisfied the requirement of Article 299 of the Constitution.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State Through Cbi on 15 March, 2002

66. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Ors., , The State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Ranganatha Reddy and Anr., , R. v. Lambert, 2001(3) ALL ER 577, Rejendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, , Nidamarti Meheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , Candler v. Crane Christmas and Co., 1951 (1) ALL ER 426, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishori Lal Minocha, , Warehousing and Forwarding Company of East Africa Ltd. v. Jafferali & Sons, Ltd., 1963 (3) ALL ER 571, Midland Bank Trust Co.Ltd.
Delhi High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - R S Sodhi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next