Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1488 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 30 August, 2011

Rajesh Sharma vs . State & Ors. on 6 February, 2019

testimony of PW­1 remained unrebutted. However, the question which now arises for consideration is whether the estate in respect of which letter of administration has been sought by the petitioner in the present petition, was the same estate in regard to which a letter of administration in respect of the Will executed by Smt. Bhagwan Dei in favour of Sh. Radhey Mohan Lal, was granted in favour of Smt. Sarla Devi? Vide the judgment dated 27.06.2002 passed by Sh. G. P. Mittal, the then ADJ, Tis Hazari, Court, petition for grant of letters of administration was allowed in favour of Sarla Devi, the legal heir of sole beneficiary Radhey Mohan. However, neither any certificate of Letters of Administration bearing the schedule of properties nor the Will of Bhagwan Dei was filed on record. Copy of the Will of Late Bhagwan Dei in favour of Radehy Mohan, if filed herein, would have disclosed the assets bequeathed to Radhey Mohan which ultimately Sarla Devi claimed. Further, as already observed, simply allowing a petition for grant of Probate/Letters of Administration is not sufficient. In furtherance of the judgment, letter of Probate or Letters of Administration has to be issued after payment of Court Fee. There is nothing to show that Sarla Devi actually obtained Letters of Administration, after complying with necessary formalities. Petitioner did not file any title PC No.5822/2016 Page 9 of 10 Rajesh Sharma vs. State & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Munna Lal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 3 August, 2015

(3) The respondents shall also pass a speaking order regarding claim of grant of seniority to the petitioner from the date of classification as permanent employee. (4) If for any justifiable reasons, the petitioner is not found entitled for any of the benefits claimed, a detailed and reasoned order be passed and communicated to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be completed within 120 days from the date of 8 Writ Petition No.4952/2015 (Munna lal Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others) production of copy of this order alongwith the representation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Munna Lal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 21 August, 2015

(3) The respondents shall also pass a speaking order regarding claim of grant of seniority to the petitioner from the date of classification as permanent employee. (4) If for any justifiable reasons, the petitioner is not found entitled for any of the benefits claimed, a detailed and reasoned order be passed and communicated to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be completed within 120 days from the date of 8 Writ Petition No.4952/2015 (Munna lal Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others) production of copy of this order alongwith the representation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2019

"7. Therefore, it is to be only seen as to whether the Trial Court has judiciously and judicially exercised its discretion. The Trial Court as also the High Court, seem to have -( 9 )- MCRC No. 45250/2019 Ramesh Sharma vs. State of MP properly applied their minds by going into the nature of the documents sought to be summoned, their bearing and relevance for the nature of consideration to be made at that stage of the proceedings before the Special Judge as well as the necessity and desirability whereof. The consideration so made by the courts below in rejecting the claim of the appellant, could not be held to be either condemnable or constitute any gross or improper failure to exercise their jurisdiction and consequently, it does not call for any interference in our hands. Therefore, the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R K Shrivastava - Full Document

Rakesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2020

It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate." Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.26703/2020 (Rakesh Vs. State of M.P. ) the case coupled with the fact of COVID-19 scenario and the fact that the applicant is in custody since 29.11.2018, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application. The application is allowed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

Rakesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2017

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.3 that the applicant no.4 was granted divorce by her husband and from the year 2001 she is residing along with the other applicants therefore, it is submitted that it is incorrect to say that the applicant no.4 is residing separately from that of the other applicants. So far as the applicant no.5 is concerned, her address has been shown to be of Kailaras, District-Morena, whereas the other applicants have been shown to be the resident of Naya Bazaar, Lashkar, Gwalior. After going through the arrest memo of applicant no.5, it is clear that the address of the applicant no.5 in the arrest memo is also mentioned as Naya Bazaar, Lashkar, Gwalior. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.3 that at the time of arrest, the address which is disclosed by the detenu is mentioned in the arrest memo. Thus, it is submitted that applicant no.5 is also residing at the same address and not at Kailaras, District-Morena. It is further submitted that the husband of the respondent no.3 had five sisters. The allegations have been made against the two sisters. If, the intention of the respondent M.Cr.C. No.7706/2016 6(Rakesh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) no.3 was to falsely and over implicate the relatives of the husband then, respondent no.3 would not have spared the other three sisters. The very fact that the respondent no.3 did not lodge anything against the remaining three sisters of her husband clearly shows that the allegations have been made only against those persons who have really harassed and treated the respondent no.3 with cruelty. It is further submitted that out of the three, remaining two sisters are also resident of Gwalior.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next