Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.57 seconds)

Sc No.:­27650/16 State vs . Prem Nath & Ors. Page No.1/37 on 27 September, 2018

23. Coming to the ingredients of Section 452 IPC, I am of the considered opinion that testimonies of any of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire their confidence. If the story of prosecution, as mentioned in the charge-sheet is believed to be correct, the shop of complainant Govind is not very big. The road outside the shop of complainant Govind is also stated to be not very wide and it is alleged to be having a breadth of about 8/9 feet which is more or less like a street. If considering the entire facts and circumstances of the place where the incident had taken place, then not many persons can gather at the place in and around the shop of complainant Govind. Keeping in mind the geographical situation of the shop of Govind and adjoining road / street as alleged, this fact is also not disputed by the prosecution and accused persons. More so, it has been alleged by PW-6 Govind that on the day of incident i.e. 13.03.2013, he was getting his shop repaired and some labour / mason were also present in the shop. During final arguments, it is stated that at that time, the repair work was going on and some raw material and equipments of labour were also lying in his shop. It has been alleged by SC no.:­27650/16             State Vs.  Prem Nath & Ors.       Page no.16/37  PW-6 Govind that he was sitting on a chair at that time when accused Shyam Sunder came there alleging that he would dance there. Similar facts have been alleged by PW-5 Poonam who is stated to be the wife of PW-6 Govind, however, there is a contradiction which, in my considered opinion, is material, that it was she who was sitting on the chair when accused Shyam Sunder came there on the pretext of dancing and kicked her chair. The story narrated by complainant seems to be further weaken by the premise that the shop in question was not very big and as repair work was already going on there and some persons were also present there, hence, not much space was left for any other person to come to the shop. The dancing there, therefore, seems to be highly improbable as alleged by complainant Govind.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Prem Nath @ Prem Gill & Ors. on 8 April, 2021

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2011, pax/accused Premnath arrived as deportee from Malaysia on his passport no. H-6164944. On verification of his travel documents, the Malaysian visa affixed on page no. 9 of his passport was found doubtful. Thereafter, his passport was seized and sent to the concerned authority for verification of Malaysian visa. Vide letter no. (032)IMND/5/2 AJLD7(87) dated 18.07.2011, High Commission of Malaysia confirmed that visa sticker VB3042995 appearing on page no. 9 of passport of pax/accused Prem Nath respectively is not genuine. Since, pax/accused cheated the immigration officials by travelling on forged Malaysian Visa, a case under relevant sections of law was registered against him. Rukka in this case was prepared on 27.07.2011 after receipt of letter from FRRO and Embassy of FIR No:- 324/11 State v. Prem Nath @ Prem Gill & Ors. Page No. 2 of 20 UAE. During investigation, pax/accused Prem Nath disclosed that his journey was arranged by accused Gurkanwal Singh with the help of agent Parminder Singh. Accused Gurkanwal Singh was thus, apprehended at the instance of accused no. 1. Accused Parwinder Singh, though could not be traced, as such, he was declared absconder on 22.01.2013.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Prem Nath on 23 August, 2011

5. PW-2 Sh. Rameshwar Rai stated that he do not remember the 4 FIR No:464/2000 State Vs. Prem Nath date. On that day he was present at his house and one of his son Ashok had also gone for daily work. Ramu was present with him. At about 10.00 pm one boy came to him at his house and told him that his son Ashok had met with an accident and he had been taken to DDU hospital. Thereafter, he along with his son Ramu went to the said hospital, whereon he met one policeman, who confirmed that his son was admitted in the said hospital and he further told that he could meet him on the next morning. He went again to the hospital on the next morning and saw his son, who had already died. He identified his dead body. He cannot tell the cause of death of his son. Police did not interrogate to him, however police had taken his thumb impression on a blank paper.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Crown Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. vs The Orissa State Financial Corporation ... on 14 January, 2005

In Himachal Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Shimla v. Prem Nath Nanda, AIR 2001 SC 5 (supra), the corporation did not earn interest on the sale price as would be clear in Paragraph 3 of the said judgment as reported in the AIR and the Supreme Court held that the High Court has not assigned any reason much less a cogent one for payment of interest to the industrial concern whose unit has been taken over and sold to the buyer. But in the present case, the agreement between the O.S.F.C. and the opp. party No. 4 annexed to the writ petition in O.J.C. No. 9474 of 1997 which was heard analogously with the present writ petition shows that the O.S.F.C. is charging interest from the opp. party No. 5-Bank on the sale price which remains to be paid by the opp. party No. 4. Obviously, such interest as and when recovered by the O.S.F.C. from the opp. party No. 4 on sale price will be part of the money received by the O.S.F.C. to be held in trust by the O.S.F.C. and to be applied in the manner indicated in Section 29(4) of the Act.
Orissa High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Sc No.:­28001/2016 State vs . Kailash & Ors. Page No.1/21 on 27 September, 2018

In another cross-case FIR no.46/2013 titled as "State Vs. Prem Nath & Ors" wherein Prem Nath, Ashok (since deceased), Shyam Sunder and Mahesh have been arrayed as an accused and in that cross-case FIR no.46/2013, accused persons herein namely Govind, Kailash and Rakesh are SC no.:­28001/2016             State Vs. Kailash & Ors.       Page no.15/21  complainant and prosecution witnesses.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs Rupa Devi (Deleted) & Another on 2 December, 2024

In similar matters, identical appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No.40 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Ramesh Kumar, decided on 27th February, 2024; LPA No.24 of 2019, titled as State of HP vs. Baldev Singh and others, decided on 27th March, 2024; LPA No.144 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Karam Singh, decided on 27th May, 2024; LPA No.151 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Prem Nath, decided on 12th June, 2024; LPA No.154 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Sohan Lal, decided on 14th June, 2024; LPA No.177 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Satdev Sharma & others, decided on 1st July, 2024; LPA No.230 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Chet Ram & others, decided on 2nd September, 2024; LPA No.303 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Vishal Kumar & others, decided on 24th September, 2024; LPA No.371 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Lekh Ram & others, decided on November 12, 2024; LPA No.382 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Om Parkash and another, decided on November 26, 2024; LPA No.383 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Ram Chand & others, decided on November 26, 2024; and LPA ...5... 2024:HHC:13360-DB No.394 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Bakshi Ram & others, decided on November 27, 2024, by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court including judgment/order in SLP (C ) No.10492 of 2023, titled Dharnidhar Mishre (D) and another vs. State of Bihar and others, and Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024, titled Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others; Vidya Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, (2020) 2 SCC 569; and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

State Of H.P & Others vs Rajinder Pal Alias Rajender Kumar & ... on 2 December, 2024

In similar matters, identical appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No.40 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Ramesh Kumar, decided on 27th February, 2024; LPA No.24 of 2019, titled as State of HP vs. Baldev Singh and others, decided on 27th March, 2024; LPA No.144 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Karam Singh, decided on 27th May, 2024; LPA No.151 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Prem Nath, decided on 12th June, 2024; LPA No.154 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Sohan Lal, decided on 14th June, 2024; LPA No.177 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Satdev Sharma & others, decided on 1st July, 2024; LPA No.230 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Chet Ram & others, decided on 2nd September, 2024; LPA No.303 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Vishal Kumar & others, decided on 24th September, 2024; LPA No.371 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Lekh Ram & others, decided on November 12, 2024; LPA No.382 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Om Parkash and another, decided on November 26, 2024; LPA No.383 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Ram Chand & others, decided on November 26, 2024; and 5 LPA No.394 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Bakshi Ram & others, decided on November 27, 2024, by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court including judgment/order in SLP (C ) No.10492 of 2023, titled Dharnidhar Mishre (D) and another vs. State of Bihar and others, and Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024, titled Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others; Vidya Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, (2020) 2 SCC 569; and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

State Of H.P & Others vs Soma Devi & Others on 2 December, 2024

In similar matters, identical appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No.40 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Ramesh Kumar, decided on 27th February, 2024; LPA No.24 of 2019, titled as State of HP vs. Baldev Singh and others, decided on 27th March, 2024; LPA No.144 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Karam Singh, decided on 27th May, 2024; LPA No.151 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Prem Nath, decided on 12th June, 2024; LPA No.154 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Sohan Lal, decided on 14th June, 2024; LPA No.177 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Satdev Sharma & others, decided on 1st July, 2024; LPA No.230 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Chet Ram & others, decided on 2nd September, 2024; LPA No.303 of 2024, titled State of HP vs. Vishal Kumar & others, decided on 24th September, 2024; LPA No.371 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Lekh Ram & others, decided on November 12, 2024; LPA No.382 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Om Parkash and another, decided on November 26, 2024; LPA No.383 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Ram Chand & others, decided on November 26, 2024; and LPA No.394 of 2024, titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Bakshi Ram & 5 others, decided on November 27, 2024, by referring the judgment of the Supreme Court including judgment/order in SLP (C ) No.10492 of 2023, titled Dharnidhar Mishre (D) and another vs. State of Bihar and others, and Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024, titled Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others; Vidya Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, (2020) 2 SCC 569; and Sukh Dutt Ratra and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (2022) 7 SCC 508.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next