Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Rajiv Sharma @ Hari Kishan Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 May, 2008

Smt. Kiran Sharma vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi on 16 March, 2015

10. In the affidavit, the plaintiff specifically disclosed that her husband has been missing for the last more than 14 years and he has not been heard or seen by anyone during such period. Even there is a presumption U/s 108 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that when a man is alleged to be alive or dead and if it is CS No. : 19/13 Page No. 4 of 5 Kiran Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 13 December, 2021

13. Secondly, there is substance in the plea of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner / revisionist that the charge under Section 354A r/w Section 506/509 IPC framed vide the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 CR No. 82/20 M. K. Gaur vs. State & Anr. Page 9 of 16 is grossly ambiguous as it is not framed in terms of Section 211 & 212 of the Cr.P.C since it is not indicating the time, date, month or place of alleged commission of offence by the petitioner / revisionist. To that effect, the reliance has been placed on decision for which reliance is placed on decision in Hari Kishen Sharma vs. State(supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Secretary (Labour) vs A on 24 January, 2009

17. On the other hand, Ld. AR for management has relied upon two judgments of Delhi High Court in CWP No. 2790/99, the case titled Hari Kishan Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, decided on 8.1.01 and CWP No. 3705/99 and 3737/99, the case titled Ajay Kumar & others Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others decided on 14.2.2000. The facts of these two cases are exactly similar to the facts of the present case. Both these writ petitions were dismissed on almost similar grounds, like the appointments on daily wage basis was apparently not appointments on regular basis, the management being a statutory body is bound to adhere to the rules for making appointments and without undergoing selection process in accordance with these rules the petitioners cannot claim any regularisation. It is further observed that those who entered through back door can be shown exit through back door.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1