Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 433 (0.80 seconds)

Brajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2022

It was alleged that for 3 - 4 times, the applicant went to Lateri 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.13621/2022 (Brajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) to meet her. The applicant is working in engineering field and is posted at Jhabua. On 07/10/2021, the applicant had a talk with the prosecutrix on phone. The applicant requested her to come to Ujjain and they would marry and accordingly, the prosecutrix came to Ujjain from Vidisha by bus. It is alleged that the applicant instructed her on phone to wait for him at Railway Station and accordingly, in the night the applicant also came to Ujjain. It is alleged that on 10/10/2021, the applicant under the pretext of marriage committed rape on her and thereafter, told her that they would go to Guna for performing marriage. The applicant came to Guna alongwith the prosecutrix, but thereafter, he took a somersault and refused to marry her and left Guna.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Swapan Kumar Bhattacharjee vs The Union Of India on 12 April, 2024

In the case of Brajendra Singh Yambem Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2016) 9 SCC 20 (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the disciplinary proceedings are not instituted against the government servant while he was in service, then the prior sanction of the President of India is required to institute such proceedings against such a person.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - D Roshan - Full Document

Bhanu Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 November, 2020

23. Their Lordships considered the pre-amended provisions of the Act of 1956, where a Hindu female had no right to take in adoption so long as the husband was alive, or her marriage was not dissolved by divorce or annulment. She could not adopt even by her husband's consent. As the facts would show that the husband had never lived with Mishri Bai, and the marriage was but ceremonial and one solemnized to gratify a village custom. It was further mooted before Their Lordships that for the purpose of Section 8 of the Act of 1956, as it then stood, Mishri Bai was living like a divorced woman. As such, she could not be regarded as disabled for taking in adoption, Brajendra Singh. The provisions of pre-amended Section 8 of the Act of 1956 that were amended vide Act 30 of 2010 w.e.f. 31.08.2010 are extracted in their Lordships' judgment in Brajendra Singh (supra), and, as such, are not being quoted. The contention about Mishri Bai living virtually like a divorced woman, in the peculiar facts of the case, and, therefore, not disabled from taking in adoption, was answered in Brajendra Singh thus :
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baljit Singh Handa vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 1 February, 2021

75. That apart, I find that the Staff Accountability Reports dated November 28, 2014 (in W.P.(C) 2846/2017), January 29, 2014, February 4, 2014 and February 10, 2014 (in W.P.(C) 3910/217 and W.P. (C) 3915/2017) indicts the petitioners of their misdemeanor. In other words, the misconduct by the petitioners had come to the notice of the respondent Bank in the year 2014 itself. The respondent Bank could have initiated the disciplinary proceedings immediately thereafter to be well within the limitation of 4 years in terms of Regulation 48(2). Any procedure like issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioners seeking their reply and to follow the procedure to declare the A/cs, NPA surely will not extend the limitation nor such a power is contemplated under the Regulation 48(2). Moreover, it is a settled position of law as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Brajendra Singh Yambem (supra) that if the manner of particular act is prescribed under the Statute then the same must be done in that manner or not at all.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - V K Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next