Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (2.12 seconds)

State vs . Manas Kumar Pati on 13 May, 2014

35. In his examination-in-chief, PW12 deposed that Gopal told him at Chandni chowk that Manas had caused injury to Fauzi Pandey by giving blows of stone. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Gopal was not present in the park at that time. It means that someone had told to SC No. 81/12 19 of 27 State Vs. Manas Kumar Pati Gopal but no investigation was made to know who told Gopal about the said incident. Even police did not deem it appropriate to record the statement of Gopal. Nor Gopal was produced during the trial. He further deposed that Gopal told him that Fauzi Pandey had sustained injury on his legs and hands, which is contrary to the prosecution case because as per prosecution version, deceased had not sustained any such injury. Rather he had sustained injury on his head. He further deposed that after knowing this that Fauzi Pandey had sustained injury by the hands of accused, he did not go to see him; rather he deposed that on July 1, 2012 he left for Haridwar by train and returned to Delhi after 3-4 months and during the said period, he did not contact either with accused or deceased. He further deposed that since he came to know that police was searching him, he appeared of his own before the SHO, this shows that probably police was suspecting him.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.J. Dhulia vs State Of Gujarat on 18 March, 2004

3.5. The Delhi High Court has relied on its earlier decision and it has spelt out that intention of Section 47 is to give adequate protection to disabled employee and to see that he is not rendered jobless and not deprived of his livelihood. Mr. Supehia has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court (Coram : H.K. Rathod, J.) in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopal M. Patel reported in 2003 (2) G.L.R. 428, wherein the award passed by the Labour Court quashing and setting aside the order of termination of service of the concerned employee on the ground of disability, was confirmed by this Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1