Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 905 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 23 January, 2003

M/S Bhagwan Through Bhagwan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2020

In the aforesaid case also a quarry lease for lifting sand was 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W. A. No.1235 of 2019 (M/s Bhagwan vs. State of MP & another) granted in favour of the petitioner therein and an agreement was executed on a 100 rupees stamp paper and in similar circumstances, this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the document in question as it relates to a lease and being of the value of Rs.100 and onwards, is compulsorily registrable u/S. 17 of the Registration Act making the petitioner therein liable to pay stamp duty @ 4% keeping in view the Schedule 1- A and Article 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. Resultantly, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, deserves to be dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Bhagwan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 June, 2020

The petitioners are directed to abide by all the terms and conditions. Petitioners shall install Arogya Setu App in their mobile immediately and would intimate their place of residence to the SHO of concerned Police Station; where they reside. Petitioners further submits their undertaking to the effect that they will abide by the terms and conditions of different circulars, orders as well as guidelines 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No.739/2020 (Bhagwan Singh and others Vs. State of M.P.) issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

Bhagwan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 November, 2017

In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, it is clear that learned trial Court has committed serious error of law and fact in framing charges under Section 304- B r/w S.109 (in alternate u/S.304-B r/w S.120B) and 498-A 5 Cr.R. No.3228/2017 (Bhagwan vs. The State of M.P.) r/w S.120B (in alternate u/S.498-A r/w S.109 of IPC) and 3 /4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioner and the same cannot be sustained.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

U/Sec.­377/511 Ipc vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 11 April, 2022

There is no dispute to the law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh's case (supra). However, in the cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the child witness was vacillating throughout his testimony and had stated that he was asked to depose either by his Nana or by his own uncle. On the contrary in the present case, child witness (PW­9) has been categoric & specific that he was not asked by any person to state in the manner he had deposed in the court. The hild (PW­9) did not seem to have been tutored. Moreover, this court is of the opinion that TIP is of import when the accused involved in the occurrence is not otherwise familiar to the witness. For example in a case where the accused and the witness come across each other for the first time at the time of commission of offence. In such a situation TIP would certainly be of relevance. However, in the present case the child victim knew the accused very well and since quite some time. Admittedly, appellant was a teacher in the school, CA No.-06/2018 Page No.-16 of 25 where victim was studying. Though, he was not class teacher for the child victim; however, he had been visiting his class for story­ telling. The child and the appellant were, thus, known to each other. Therefore, no illegality can be attributed in identity of appellant only because the accused was not put to TIP.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Girish Pal & Others on 11 May, 2017

(10)A bare perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that it has disposed of the appeal in a rather casual manner. Most of the conclusions arrived at the by the High Court are per se not on sound footing. The appellate Court will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice by interfering where interference is imperative. Where doubt is based on irrelevant grounds or where the Court allows itself to be deflected by red herrings drawn across the track, or where the evidence accepted by the Trial Court is rejected by the High Court after a perfunctory consideration or where the baneful approach of the Court has resulted in vital and crucial evidence being ignored or for any such adequate reason, the Court should feel obliged to secure the ends of justice, to appease the judicial conscience, as it were. The High Court has noted that the names of witnesses do not appear in the first information report. That by itself cannot be a ground to doubt their evidence as noted by this Court in Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P., JT (2002) 3 SC 387, Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) AIR SCW 3466 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Man Singh and Ors., (2003) 6 Supreme 202. There is no requirement of mentioning the names of all witnesses in the first information report. No reason has also been indicated by the High Court as to why the evidence of PWs. 3, 8, 11,12 and 15 was to be obliterated merely because they were accused in the counter case. In a case of this nature, when counter case has been registered, the Court hearing the same has to scrutinize the evidence with greater detail and even in such a situation the evidence which is cogent, credible and trustworthy cannot be totally wiped out because of the only circumstance that they were accused in the counter case. Additionally, we find that PWs. 3, 6 and 9 have not been merely described in the first information to have taken the deceased to the hospital, as observed by the High Court. A bare reading of the first information report clearly shows that they were described as eyewitnesses also. Here again, the High Court has committed error.
Allahabad High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mohd Refiq Shah vs State on 26 August, 2011

Now we have to see the facts of this case to find out whether the facts of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are identical to those of the present case. So far as the case State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Dixit & Anr. (supra) is concerned, the identification of the accused was made by the witness for the first time in the Page 13 of 22 D.B. Criminal Appeals No. 323, 382, 674, 675, 676 & 737 of 2005 court and that was not relied upon, whereas in the case of Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that so far as identification of the accused is concerned, where the witness was found to be acquainted with the three accused already, there is no necessity for the prosecution to have a test identification parade. In the present case, P.W.6 Savita stated that she knew Mohammed Rafique and Shahjad even prior to the occurrence, therefore, there was no necessity for the police to hold test identification parade during the course of the investigation.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S R Lodha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next