Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Vimla Devi & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another on 9 February, 2017

M/S Narendra Kumar @ Brothers And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 December, 2022

In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon judgments of Supreme Court in DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs. J.N. Sareen & Anr, AIR 2008 SC 2255: (2008) 8 SCC 1, Dilip Hariramani Vs. Bank of Baroda, AIRONLINE 2022 SC 668: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 579, Alka Khandu Avhad Vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra, AIRONLINE 2021 SC 124, S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Anr, AIR 2005 SC 3512, S.R.Sukumar Vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609, Mannalal Chamaria Vs.State of West Bengal, AIR 2014 SC 2240, Mrs. Aparna A.Shah Vs. M/s.Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, AIR 2013 SC 3210 and the judgment of Allahabad High Court in application under Section 482 No.234 of 2008, Smt. Vimla Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr, decided on 9.2.2017.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Dilip Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 2 January, 2020

9. A subsequent allottee has no right as he is not a party to the lis. No appeal under U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Order, 2004") lie at the instances of a subsequent allottee. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10539 of 2007 (Smt. Vimla Devi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 13.03.2007 has held that subsequent allottee has no right to continue with fair price agreement.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

M/S R.R. Builders And Developers 14 Anil ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 March, 2023

12. In view of the provisions of section 143 of N.I. Act and the quantum of punishment provided for the offence under section 138 N. I. Act, it is apparent that a case under section 138 N.I. Act has to be tried summarily. Chapter XX of Cr.P.C deals with trial of summons-cases by the Magistrate under Sections 251 to 259 Cr.P.C and it is relevant to note that no provision for discharge the accused is provided in that procedure. However, under Section 258 Cr.P.C, the power to stop proceedings in certain cases is provided but that is limited to summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, that is, the cases mentioned in Section 190(1)(b) and (c) Cr.P.C, in which, cognizance is taken upon a police report or upon other information or own knowledge of the Magistrate. Hence, the power under Section 258 Cr.P.C can also not be invoked in the summons-case instituted on a complaint, where cognizance is taken under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus, the proceedings under Section 138 of N. I. Act, being a summons-case, instituted on a complaint, cannot be stopped by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 258 Cr.P.C. In other words there is no provision providing for discharge of the accused in a summons-case instituted on the complaint and similarly there is no power to stop proceedings invoking the power under Section 258 of CrPC. Similar view has been taken by this Court in case of Smt. Vimla & Anr vs. State of UP & Anr (Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 234 of 2008), decided on 09.02.2017.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R B Singh - Full Document

X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 August, 2025

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge / Special Judge (POCSO), Sant Kabir Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2023 (Vimla Devi vs. State of U.P and Another), under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 318 of 2021 (Samar Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and Another), under Section 376 IPC and Section ¾ of POCSO Act, Police Station- Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Siddharth - Full Document

Smt. Vimla Devi vs Dinesh Kumar Singh, D.M. And Another on 17 January, 2020

The instant petition has been filed for violation of the judgement dated 17 May 2019 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 149 of 1996 (Smt. Vimla Devi vs. State of U.P. & another), whereby, the appeal has been partly allowed. The compensation of the acquired land was determined @ Rs.16,830/- per decimal. The petition primarily seeks the execution of the Appellate Court order/decree.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next