Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.75 seconds)

Mahendrakumar Ramanlal Patel vs State Of ... on 13 July, 2017

Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have come to the conclusion that it was necessary in the interest of justice to prosecute the witness. The learned Trial Court is required to record its findings to this effect based on some concrete material or evidence before the initiation of issuance of show-cause-notice under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. Such findings are absolutely missing in the impugned judgment. It is found that these two satisfactions are missing from the impugned judgment and order of conviction. The decision cited by the learned advocate for the appellants given in the case of Ambalal Bhavanishanker Upadhyaya Vs. Rasiklal Manilal Mehta (supra) as well as the decision given in the case of Ashokkumar Sursinbhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P P Bhatt - Full Document

Ajay Upadhayay vs Uco Bank on 30 April, 2025

During the course of the argument it is felt necessary that the record of the S.A. No. 16/2008 passed on 29.03.2011 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur in case of Manik Mehta vs. UCO Bank and others and records of Appeal No. R-77/2011 {UCO Bank vs. Manik Mehta} and R- KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH 75/2011{Ajay Upadhyaya vs. Manik Mehta and Others} passed on Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.04.30 17:49:39 +0530 20.07.2018 in case of by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad be requisite by the Registry of this Court. Let the Registry call the records. The Registry is also directed to send email for calling the records so that the records may be received during the vacation. The matter be listed for final disposal in motion on 18th June, 2025. The interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1