Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Rajendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 September, 2003

Ram Niwas vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 17 January, 2005

13. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner ignored the fact that with the death of petitioner's wife, the relationship of father and son/daughter has not come to end or served, which happens on giving a child in adoption to other. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that number of children of existing couple only can be taken in account in accepted than it will mean that a person, who was not qualified to contest the election because of his having more than two children, with the death of his wife or on divorce to his wife that person will again become qualified candidate to contest the election. Such an interpretation of either Clause (1) of Section 19 or Proviso (iv) or the Explanation to Section 19 will be against the legislative intention. Therefore, the analogy, which was applied in the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra), has no application to the facts of this case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Murlidhar Sharma vs Addl. Registrar And Ors. on 4 April, 2006

8. Thus, under the existing proviso the proceedings ought to have been initiated within the period of six years from the date of act or omission or the irregularity complained of. As the incident of irregularity in the present case was committed in 1971, the action initiated by the respondents in 1989 was without jurisdiction being time barred. He also relied on the decision in Rajendra Kumar v. State of Raj. DBCSA No. 1198/2000 decided on 12.2.2001 holding the proviso to Section 74(1) to be very clear. Under the proviso, no inquiry can be initiated after the expiry of six years from the date of indicated omission or commission by the concerned person. That decisiorl of learned single judge referred to above is the correct view of the matter.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

L.S.Cable Limited vs Escorts Ltd And Another on 17 December, 2009

The learned counsel for the petitioner had been emphatic in the course of arguments that the first respondent is guilty of suppression of material fact with regard to the pendency of arbitration proceedings. In paragraph No. 14 of the plaint, it has been averred that "The defendant No.1 also illegally and by distorting material facts has also initiated arbitration proceedings against the plaintiff." This clearly indicates that the pendency of arbitration proceedings has been disclosed. Sequelly, this contention plaes into insignificance. The thrust of the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner is that civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the civil suit. The petitioner instead of unfolding its case in relation to jurisdiction before the learned trial Court has moved to this Court by invoking the Provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Under this Article, the High Court can not interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior Authority, Court or, Tribunal, unless its findings or order is clearly perverse. It may be stated that the High Court's power under C.R. No. 7292 of 2009 5 Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised only when there is dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of law and should be exercised most sparingly in a case, where grave injustice would be done unless the Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional forum as observed in re: Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 Rajasthan 229. Adverting to the instant one, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the impugned order, it could have recourse to the appellate Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gian Singh & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 June, 2014

In the decision relied upon it has been observed that there may be cases where, on account of close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death, a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide. The Honble Apex Court, dealing with the aspect of recovery of dead body of the deceased from the rented room of accused, held in Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2003, Supreme Court 3196:-
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next