Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Akhil Bhartiya, Guru Ghasidas ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 16 ... on 8 October, 2018

Akhil Kumar Sharma vs Mukesh Kumar Sharma on 12 September, 2024

37. I am afraid to accept the said contention. Firstly, for attracting the provisions of Section 82, there has to be mens rea on the part of the person making false statement which in this case is missing. The respondent no. 1 to 3 in the relinquishment deed have only relinquished their shares and rights in the property in question and they have not harmed or caused any prejudice to the rights of any other legal heirs. Secondly, as per RTI report filed by the revisionist himself in which it was requested to PIO MCD, Delhi that who has made the application/request to incorporate the name of Smt. Sushma Sharma in the records. The answer to the said request furnished by MCD is Smt. Sushma Sharma. As CR No. 111/2024 AKHIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA & OTHERS Page 15/19 such, it is apparent that it was Smt. Sushma Sharma who had made the said application / request to EDMC to incorporate her name in the records for the property in question and the said application/request was not made by the respondent no. 1 to 3. As per section 82, the false statement has to be made intentionally before any officer acting in execution of the Registration Act or any proceedings or enquiry under the said Act. Lastly, it was submitted by the respondent no. 1 to 3 that they were under the mistake of fact as informed by their mother because of unregistered Will that two sons, namely, Lokesh Sharma and Satender Sharma were debarred by Sh. Jai Pal Sharma in the property and, therefore, their names were omitted as legal heirs in the relinquishment deed.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Guru Prasad vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 20 March, 2024

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/Tehsildar, Tehsil Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar to decide the Case No.66/1905 of 2012 (Guru Prasad and another Vs. Smt. Chandrapati) pending before him expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment in deciding the aforesaid case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document

S Rajavel vs M/O Communications on 29 November, 2023

It is therefore, quite clear that both Mohanan Nair(supra) and R.K. Sharma(supra), examined the MACP scheme; the latter, especially, ruled that the scheme was operable from 01-09-2008, and that the respondents "officers are not entitled to seek implementation of the benefits of MACPS with effect from 1-1-2006 according to the Resolution dated 29-8-2008". Having regard to this clearly enunciated principle, which, in this court's opinion, stems from a correct reading of the scheme, the reasoning of the High Court, that the MACP scheme is operative not from 01-09-2008, but from 01-01-2006, is untenable. The mere circumstance that the resolution of the Government which led to adoption of the MACP also contained the effective date for implementation of the pay-benefits of the Pay Commission recommendations, did not obliterate the fact that the date from which the scheme was to be made effective, was another one."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next