Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Lalita Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh 26 Fa/275/1996 ... on 20 February, 2019

Sunita W/O. Sangmesh Lamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 July, 2022

13. Admittedly, the accused said to be selling the liquor in the bus stand of Hunagund. Absolutely there was no time for the complainant PW-3 for obtaining search warrant from the Magistrate under Section 53 of K.E. Act. But Section 54 of the K.E. Act provides that by recording the reason in writing that should be used as FIR in future. But here in this case, PW-3 not at all produced any such document and marked before the Court that he has made an attempt to obtain 11 search warrant from the Magistrate or else he has recorded the reason for not obtaining search warrant but proceeded to spot for seizing the liquor. Therefore, once the cognizable offence is made out, the police officer or excise department shall have to be register the FIR before proceeding to spot as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of Uttara Pradesh without registering the FIR proceeded to the spot seizing and preparing panchanama is violation of the provisions of Cr.P.C. In a similar circumstance, this Court in the case of Crl.P.No.278/2018 c/w Crl.P.No.279/2018 dated 09.03.2022 has quashed the proceedings by invoking the provisions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Likewise, the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court has also acquitted the accused in Crl.A.No.2892/2012 dated 15.07.2020 and in Crl.A.No.2805/2009 dated 07.07.2017 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of K.L. Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1979 (2) SCC 115. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 12 set aside the judgment of sentence passed by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Section 53 and 54 of K.E. Act, PW-3 has not at all followed the mandatory provisions. Therefore, conviction and sentence by the trial Court and upheld by the first appellate Court is not sustainable under law. Therefore, by invoking Section 397 of Cr.P.C., the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and upheld by the first appellate Court is required to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Oriental Insurance Company And Others on 7 November, 2022

This appeal has been preferred by insurer against Award dated 19.08.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P. in Claim Petition No. 8/2005 (207/2005) titled Smt. Lalita Kumari and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and others, whereby liability to pay compensation to the claimants has been fastened on the insurer.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidya - Full Document

Lalita @ Sony vs Shobha Devi on 17 February, 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 23.06.2022, passed by the Court of Sh Paras Dalal, ld. MM­01, South West, Dwarka Courts, in Cr. Case 1415/2021, titled as 'Lalita @ Sony v/s Shobha Devi & Ors', whereby ld. MM was pleased to dismiss the application preferred by petitioner under Section 156(3) CrPC, vide his detailed order, after discussing all her submissions and contentions, the petitioner has challenged the same on the following amongst other grounds :
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maya Devi vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 9 April, 2024

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 has filed a suit under Section 36 of Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 (in short "DLR Act, 1954") bearing Suit no. 360/RA/2006, captioned Smt. Lalita Devi vs. Smt. Maya & Anr. By virtue thereof, the respondent no.2 sought permission to let out her share in the holding i.e. 1/3 share of agricultural land measuring 13 bighas comprising in Khasra no.213 situated in the revenue estate of village Mukandpur and other ancillary reliefs.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - T R Gedela - Full Document

Lalita Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 May, 2024

2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 13.10.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge 4th/Special Judge (E. C. Act), Basti, in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2014, whereby the court below has allowed the aforesaid appeal filed by accused/opposite party-2, Satyanarayan and set aside the judgement and order dated 24.03.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Basti, in Complaint Case No. 533 of 2013 (Smt. Lalita Devi Vs. Satyanarayan) under Section 494 I.P.C., whereby the trial court had convicted the accused/opposite party-2 under Section 494 I.P.C. and consequently, sentenced him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the accused/opposite party-2 has been acquitted of the charge under Section 494 I.P.C.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R Misra - Full Document

Manish Kumar Mishra vs Smt. Lalita Bajpai on 30 September, 2024

(2) This is an appeal filed by the appellant-husband challenging the judgment and order dated 16.05.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.30 of 2019 : Smt. Lalita Bajpai vs. Maneesh Kumar Mishra under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955") (3) The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant herein was married with the respondent on 11.02.2010. Differences arose between them, criminal proceeding under criminal law were initiated by the respondent-wife against the appellant herein under Sections 498A, 323/34, 504, 354 and 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow. Chargesheet was filed against the appellant-husband. The matter was tried by the court of criminal jurisdiction and the appellant herein was convicted for the offences alleged, however, his parents and other family members were acquitted. This led to the filing of an appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence. At the criminal appeal stage, a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the proceedings under Section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2005"), copy of the compromise is on record at page 38 of the counter affidavit. In terms of the said compromise, the appeal was disposed of and the appellant was acquitted, presumably, because the offences alleged were compoundable and also considering the nature of dispute which arose out of marriage between the parties. This compromise which is dated 19.12.2018 and the judgment based thereon dated 25.04.2018 have not been challenged by the respondent. In fact, they were acted upon and proceedings were initiated jointly by the parties herein for dissolution of their marriage under Section 13-B of Act, 1955. The compromise also mentioned that an amount of Rs.14,40,000/- has already been paid by the appellant herein to the respondent and the remaining amount of Rs.3,60,000/- has been deposited by the appellant herein on 19.12.2018 itself in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 as is mentioned in the compromise.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Roy - Full Document

Lakshmidevamma vs Yeddala Sreenivasulu on 24 April, 2026

But, in the decision reported in 2014 SCC Online Kar 12825 rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between Lalita Vs. M.R.Sunil Kumar and others, it has been held that 2nd wife is not entitled for compensation, but, if 2nd wife is dependent on the deceased, then she is entitled for compensation under the head of dependency. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that 2nd wife is entitled for compensation if she is dependent on the income of deceased. In the SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.1898/2025 present case, the materials placed on record disclose that the petitioner No.2, being the 2 nd wife, is dependent on the income of deceased. No materials are placed before the tribunal to show that petitioner No.2 is not dependent on the income of deceased and she is having independent source of income. The respondents not placed satisfactory materials or not elicited anything from PW.1, to show that petitioner No.2 is not dependent on the income of deceased and she is having independent source of income. As per the principles laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above stated judgment, the petitioner No.2 is entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency since the materials on record do not discloses that she was not dependent on the income of deceased. As such, the petitioner No.2, though 2nd wife of deceased, is entitled for compensation under head of loss of dependency.
Bangalore District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next