Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 109 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003

Savitri Devi vs . Naresh Chand on 23 March, 2011

9. It is further deposed that petitioner has sufficient accommodation and has recently rented out a huge space for hefty amount of rent to Mr. Kailash Chand Gupta just before filing of the present eviction petition and judgment in Satyawati's case has no application to the facts of the present case and petitioner is not the owner/landlady of the suit property and has not approached with clean hands and there being number of triable issue, leave to defend application may kindly be allowed.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cr No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra vs . State & Another. on 16 January, 2014

in this circular, point no. 1 and 2, Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has given clear instruction that list of istridhan should comply with Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. Since same was not there, complaint should not have been entertained. It is further the claim of the revisionist that since the marriage took place in Arya Samaj Mandir, in a very simple manner and no dowry/istridhan was exchanged, therefore, there was no question of invoking Section 406 IPC. It is further the case of the revisionist that the respondent no. 2 (wife) has herself alleged that on 23.9.2007, he (husband) packed his bags and left the matrimonial house. It is further the case of the revisionist that when he left the house, the respondent no. 2 was in the house with complete household items, clothes and all luxury items and her istridhan, then how a case u/s 406 IPC can be made out against him. The revisionist has further relied upon the case of "Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand", 2003 Cri LJ 2759 (Delhi), claiming that in the said case it was held that "taunting" is not cruelty.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. S.K. Shahi vs State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 November, 2007

In the case of Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand and Others (supra) it was held that the word 'harassment' in ordinary sense means to torment a person subjecting him or her through 33 Criminal Revision No. 100/06 & 101/06 constant interference or intimidation. If such tormentation is done with a view to coerce any person and in this case, the wife to do any unlawful act and in this case to meet the unlawful demand of property or valuable security, it amounts to 'harassment' as contemplated by Section 498A IPC. Word 'Coercion' means pursuading or compelling a person to do something by using force or threats . Thus to constitute "harassment" following ingredients are essential:
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Anshuman Narang & Ors on 30 April, 2021

1716 of 2007 decided on 14.12.2007,Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand and Ors 2003 CriLJ 2759 decided on 19.05.2003, Major Singh and Another v. State of Punjab 2015 (5) SCC 201, Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of U.P. 2015 (2) JCC 884, State of Haryana v. Inder Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1239, HariKishan v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0183/1988, Sarju Prasad vs. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0342/1964, Matru v. State of U.P Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2019, Padamati Venkata Sundara Rao v. State of A.P. 2006 Cri.LJ 2168, Machhendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/0676/2005, Kanta Prasad vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2007 CriLJ 695, Raj Kumar Khanna v. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 95 (2002) DLT 147 decided on 15.10.2001, Govind Yadav & ors v. State NCT of Delhi 2003 IIIAD Delhi 525 decided on 07.04.2003, Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli 2006 Appeal (civil) 812 of 2004 decided on 21.03.2006 and Alpic Finance Ltd vs P. Sadasivan & anr Appeal (crl.) 194 of 2001 decided on 16.02.2001.
Delhi District Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rishi Bhardwaj vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 1 October, 2021

In Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors., 2003 (2) JCC 881, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para no. 16 has held as under: "In constituting 'cruelty' contemplated by Section 498 A IPC the acts or conduct should be either such that may cause danger to life, limb or death or cause 'grave' injury or of such a degree that may drive a woman to commit suicide. Not only that such acts or conduct should be 'willful' i.e. intentional. So to invoke provisions of Section 498A IPC the tests are of stringent nature and intention is the most essential factor. The only test is that acts or conduct of guilty party should have the sting or effect of causing grave injury to the woman or are likely to cause danger of life, limb of physical or mental health.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

All R/O H. No. C-496 vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 August, 2023

Further, the judgment titled 'Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand', (2003) Cri.L.J 2759 (Delhi) is also distinguishable on facts as in the said case the CR No. 212/2023 Ravi Verma & Ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 6 of 7 husband was charged for the offence only u/s 406 IPC and the other in-laws were discharged. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition preferred by wife against the said order.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next