Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 105 (7.51 seconds)
Documents citing Laxmibai (Dead) Thru Lr'S. & Anr vs Bhagwanthbuva (Dead) Thru Lr'S. & Ors on 29 January, 2013

Mrs. Mary vs The Chairman on 21 November, 2014

In order to fortify this conclusion, it may be useful to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva, (2013) 4 SCC 97 relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General wherein it was held that "when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred and the courts may in the larger interests of administration of justice may excuse or overlook a mere irregularity or a trivial breach of law for doing real and substantial justice to the parties and pass orders which will serve the interest of justice best." The said ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court is applicable to this case. In the present case, the project sought to be executed by the respondents is in the interest of public at large. It is well settled that public interest will always outweigh private interest. The projects sought to be implemented is a very essential one to transmit the electric power from Northern States of India to Tamil Nadu and also wind power from southern region of Tamil Nadu to tide over the burgeoning power crisis. It is also stated in the counter that about 80% of the project work has been completed. It is further stated that due to the pendency of this writ petition, the project has been stalled and it could not be completed. Even though there are some technical flaws committed by the respondents, it cannot be a ground for interference. In any event, it is stated that the line proposed to pass through the land of the petitioners will not in any manner affect their cultivation. As mentioned above, the project is being implemented in the larger public interest to tide over the power shortage witnessed in the State. While executing such project of greater importance, the respondents have complied with all the formalities under law. In those circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

Arjun Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 12 February, 2025

31. Now adverting back to the present case, we find that all the witnesses have consistently stated that the deceased- informant was regaining consciousness from time to time and when he was taken to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, he had regained consciousness after treatment and then the police had arrived there and recorded his statement which was countersigned by P.W.3 Ram Kumar Singh and P.W.5 Sanjay Kumar Sharma and in fact P.W.5 has also identified his signature and the signature of P.W.3 during the course of trial, which has been marked as Ext.1/2. Thus, it cannot be said that the fardbeyan of the deceased-informant has not stood proved. Another aspect of the matter is that no question has been put to the witness in cross-examination regarding untruthfulness of the fardbeyan and that the same is fabricated, hence the unchallenged part of the evidence of a witness is required to be relied upon. It is a well settled law that in absence of question being put to the witness in cross-examination to a particular fact/circumstance, the unchallenged part of the evidence of such Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.700 of 2016 dt.12.02.2025 39/47 a witness is to be relied upon. Reference in this connection be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Chand & Ors. vs. the State of Haryana (supra) and in the case of Laxmibai vs. Bhagwantbuva (supra).
Patna High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Nand Kishore Rai And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 12 February, 2025

29. Now adverting back to the present case, we find that all the witnesses have consistently stated that the deceased- informant was regaining consciousness from time to time and when he was taken to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, he had regained consciousness after treatment and then the police had arrived there and recorded his statement which was countersigned by P.W.3 Ram Kumar Singh and P.W.4 Sanjay Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.673 of 2016 dt.12.02-2025 45/54 Kumar Sharma and in fact P.W.4 has also identified his signature during the course of trial, which has been marked as Ext.1. As far as P.W.3 is concerned, he has also stated in his evidence that he had made signature on the fardbeyan but we find that the defence is trying to take advantage of the contradiction in his statement made during the course of his cross-examination but actually it is not so, since he has merely stated in his cross-examination that at the time when the villagers had lifted the deceased-informant and taken him to Samastipur Government Hospital, he had not gone along with them, however he has nowhere denied that subsequently he had gone to the hospital, hence the same would not matter much. Thus, it cannot be said that the fardbeyan of the deceased- informant has not stood proved. Another aspect of the matter is that no question has been put to the witnesses in cross- examination regarding untruthfulness of the fardbeyan and that the same is fabricated, hence the unchallenged part of the evidence of a witness is required to be relied upon. It is a well settled law that in absence of question being put to the witness in cross-examination to a particular fact/circumstance, the unchallenged part of the evidence of such a witness is to be relied upon. Reference in this connection be had to a judgment Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.673 of 2016 dt.12.02-2025 46/54 rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Chand & Ors. vs. the State of Haryana (supra) and in the case of Laxmibai vs. Bhagwantbuva (supra).
Patna High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Prabha Minz Daughter Of Late Saran Linda vs (A) Martha Ekka Wife Of Late Ajit Ekka on 22 April, 2022

38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmibai case (supra) precisely alluded to this jurisprudential requirement while stating that a custom must be proved to be ancient, certain and reasonable. The evidence adduced on behalf of the party concerned must prove the alleged custom to be uniformly and consistently being followed.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - G K Choudhary - Full Document

Central Coalfields Limited vs Sri Suresh Kumar Singh on 22 July, 2025

2025:JHHC:20125-DB defendant in adoption to Nanuwa had not signed the adoption deed as executants thereof and had appended their signatures thereto as attesting witnesses. The said finding of fact does not appear to be correct on a perusal of the copy of the adoption deed which is on record. We have noticed from a perusal of the adoption deed that apart from the natural guardians of the appellant-defendant who had given the appellant-defendant in adoption to Nanuwa there were other persons who had signed the deed. Even otherwise, the view taken by the High Court with regard to the deed in question and the provisions of Section 16 of the Act appears to be contrary to what has been said by this Court in Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva, (2013) 4 SCC 97, particularly what has been recorded in paras 31 and 34 of the Report which may be reproduced as under: (SCC pp.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Sanjeet Roy vs The State Of Bihar on 12 February, 2025

31. Now adverting back to the present case, we find that all the witnesses have consistently stated that the deceased- informant was regaining consciousness from time to time and when he was taken to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, he had regained consciousness after treatment and then the police had arrived there and recorded his statement which was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No. 815 of 2016 dt.12-02-2025 38/46 countersigned by P.W.3 Ram Kumar Singh and P.W.5 Sanjay Kumar Sharma and in fact P.W.5 has also identified his signature and the signature of P.W.3 during the course of trial, which has been marked as Ext.1/2. Thus, it cannot be said that the fardbeyan of the deceased-informant has not stood proved. Another aspect of the matter is that no question has been put to the witnesses in cross-examination regarding untruthfulness of the fardbeyan and that the same is fabricated, hence the unchallenged part of the evidence of a witness is required to be relied upon. It is a well settled law that in absence of question being put to the witness in cross-examination to a particular fact/circumstance, the unchallenged part of the evidence of such a witness is to be relied upon. Reference in this connection be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Chand & Ors. vs. the State of Haryana (supra) and in the case of Laxmibai vs. Bhagwantbuva (supra).
Patna High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next