Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Tara Devi Wife Of Shri Shobh Nath ... vs Dr. G. Raj Shekhar Son Of Shri A.H. Gopal ... on 8 August, 2006

Ram Lal vs . State C.A. No. 104/13 on 11 August, 2014

That it is unbelievable that PW­1, PW­3 and PW­4 who stated that the appellant was present there at the spot then why PW­8, IO to issued notice 4 Ram Lal Vs. State C.A. No. 104/13 U/s 133 M.V. Act. That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the refusal of TIP by the appellant was on a genuine reason as he was earlier seen by PW­1, who already deposed that he stopped his truck. That prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. That the punishment meted out to the appellant is very harsh and he definitely deserved leniency as he is the only person to look after his poor family.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raghvendra Singh Pno-112510611 vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 31 August, 2024

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the dictum of the Apex Court in re: Ram Lal (supra), I am of the considered opinion that since on the same set of fact and charge criminal trial has been concluded in favour of the petitioner, whereby he has been acquitted and in the departmental charge-sheet, similar charge has been levelled and same witnesses have been indicated, therefore, the Department may not be allowed to conduct the inquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned charge-sheet dated 9.4.2024.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

Tara Devi vs State Of Raj on 9 April, 2013

Tara Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan // 3 // son of the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has since been decided, in our view, it is required of the respondents to give due consideration to the prayer of the prisoner concerned for grant of further parole in accordance with law. For this purpose, we are of the view that instead of standing on ceremonies, the respondents may consider this petition sent to this Court itself to be the application on behalf of prisoner concerned for grant of further parole and process the same accordingly.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Emp No. 50408115448 Prahalad vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of ... on 5 January, 2026

In Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a reported judgment dated 04.12.2023 observed that the appellant was an Constable with the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, 9th Battalion, Jodhpur. He was appointed on 15.12.1991. A FIR was lodged on 02.09.2022 against him under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 IPC . Soon thereafter on 02.04.2003, a charge-sheet in a departmental enquiry was also issued. The charges against the appellant that he had altered his date of birth in his 8th standard mark-sheet so as to project himself as having attained majority at the time of the recruitment. The disciplinary authority, by an order dated 31.03.2004 dismissed the appellant from service.. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal.Attempts to have the order reviewed and the penalty reconsidered were also in vain. At the criminal trial, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo for the same . However, learned Additional District & Session Judge, Jodhpur in appeal acquitted the appellant. The appellant, thereafter, represented for his reinstatement. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition for quashing the dismissal order . Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding is different. He found no infirmity in the order of the disciplinary authority . The writ appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court. Hon'ble the Apex Court framed two questions for consideration;
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Savita Pandey W/O Sri Shiva Nand ... vs Sri Hanuman Prasad Poddar Smriti Sewa ... on 29 October, 2007

3. Section 283 of the Act provides for issuance of citation to a person who claims to have an interest in the estate of the deceased. Such a person can also file a caveat to contest the proceedings. The question for determination in this case is whether the applicants can be said to be persons claiming an interest in the estate of the deceased. From the case set up by the applicants it is clear that the right which the applicants claim is as purchasers of housing plots. The roads and the park given in the lay out it is claimed was meant for the beneficial enjoyment of the plot holders who have formed a residential colony. The applicants rely upon Smt. Tara Devi and Anr. v. Dr. G. Raj Shekhar and Ors. 2006(3) JCLR 415 (Alld.) in which the status of such right of the plot holders to the enjoyment of the park and use of roads has been held to be an easement by grant. Thus the applicants claim is based on easementary right over the portion said to be reserved for road and park. From the case of the applicants it is clear that they do not claim any new right having accrued to them on the death of Smt. Dulalrey Devi. Whatever rights the applicants have over the portions reserved for park or road accrued to them in the life time of Smt. Dularey Devi. The applicants do not claim to have succeeded to any portion of the estate of Smt. Dularey Devi upon her death.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - J Sahai - Full Document
1   2 Next