Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 970 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Ravi vs Badrinarayan & Ors on 18 February, 2011

Kameshwar Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 29 June, 2017

In view of the ratio laid down in the Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr (Supra), I am of the opinion that the decision of this Court in State of Bihar Vs. Chunna Rajak (Supra) and of the Supreme Court in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan (Supra) relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would be of no help to the prosecution case, as the conclusions by the courts in those cases were based on the facts of those cases and the evidences adduced during trial, which are not identical in the present case.
Patna High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

Noorbasha S/O Subhan Sab vs Shafiullah on 17 August, 2021

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI Vs. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS (supra), delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case in genuine cases. The appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunal is therefore incomplete and in view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the material evidence on merits. Yet another reason for our conclusion to remit the matter is that the Tribunal has not assessed the disability and compensation payable to the claimant. Even : 15 : for this reason, the matter requires to be remitted to the Tribunal.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manish Kumar (Dar) vs Satya Pal Singh (Fir No. 256/22, Ps. ... on 21 January, 2026

(41) In light of the authoritative ruling in Ravi Vs Badrinarayan (supra) , mere delay in lodging of the FIR in the present case cannot be a ground to dismiss the case as there is no indication at all of the contents of the FIR being fabricated. (42) The respondents have failed to put forth any such defence as could cast a cloud of doubt over the petitioner's version, which is more trustworthy and believable. (43) The petitioner maintained that he was hit from behind. The very fact that the offending vehicle hit the petitioner from the back due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries is sufficient to invoke the principle of Res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) and the presumption of negligence and rashness on the part of the respondent driver/respondent no.1 is raised. No cogent evidence to rebut the presumption has been adduced by the respondents.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Budhni Devi (Dar) vs Rajinder Singh (Fir 609/21 Ps Malviya ... on 12 March, 2026

(45) For whatever reason, the FIR was not lodged timely in the present case but the petitioner did pro actively take steps in regard to the alleged inaction of the police in this regard by filing the application before the Ld. Criminal Court seeking orders for registration of the FIR. In such circumstances the delay in lodging of the FIR cannot be taken as a factor going against the petitioner. As such, in view of the judgment of Ravi Vs Badrinarayan & Ors (supra), as there is no indication at all of Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.15 of 27 fabrication or concoction of facts, the factum of delay in lodging of FIR by itself cannot be a ground to dismiss the present claim petition which otherwise has merit.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next