Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 242 (1.39 seconds)
Documents citing Rakesh Kumar Goel Etc vs U.P.State Industrial Dev.Corpn.Ltd.& ... on 8 July, 2010

Rakesh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 11 November, 2024

M/s Rakesh Kumar Goel vs MCD Date of judgment 11.11.2024 (page 7 of 20 ) II, Shahara North division, MCD, to the Plaintiff in the Shahdara District; even the work has been done in the area of District Shahdara, New Delhi; the work was completed by the Defendant in the Shahdara District; the payment in lieu of the concerned work was also made by the Plaintiff in the Shahdara District. Defendant has denied that Rakesh Kumar Goel is authorised to file the present case as no authorization has been filed by the plaintiff which proves that Rakesh Kumar Goel has authority from the other partners. It is further denied that the plaintiff had ever made any request in writing for the releasing of the payment qua the work in question and it was made clear to the plaintiff prior to entering into the contract that the defendant shall not be liable to pay any interest to the contractor in case of delay in payment on account of non-availability of the founds in the particular head of Account of MCD. It is therefore prayed that the present suit may kindly be dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Rakesh Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 January, 2011

Rakesh Kumar vs. State 11 "The provisions of S. 190 do not mean that once a complaint is filed, a Magistrate is bound to take cognizance if the facts stated in the complaint disclose the commission of any offence. The word `may' in the reason is obvious. A complaint disclosing cognizable offences may well justify the Magistrate in sending the complaint, under S. 156(3) to the police for investigation. There is no reason why the time of the Magistrate should be wasted when primarily the duty to investigate in cases involving cognizable offences is with the police. On the other hand there may be occasions when the Magistrate may exercise his discretion and take cognizance of a cognizable offence. If he does so then he would have to proceed in the manner provided by Chapter XVI of the Code."
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar vs Rekha on 11 December, 2023

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent and appellant had good family relations with each other and in the month of February 2016, the appellant approached the complainant for financial help of Rs.7,00,000/- with assurance to return the same within two years from the date of payment. Respondent handed over Rs.7,00,000/- to the appellant as friendly loan and father of the appellant furnished his property papers to the complainant as guarantor of appellant. Again in the month of March 2017, the appellant approached the respondent for sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and assured him to return the same along with Rs. 7,00,000/-. Upon assurance of the appellant and surety already given by the appellant as well as his father, respondent lent Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellant. Thereafter, in the month of March 2018, when respondent demanded his money, the appellant sought 1 year time. After expiry of one year time, CA No. 80/2023 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State and Ors. page no. 2 of 12 in the month of March 2019, the appellant issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- which was transferred in the account of respondent on 02.05.2019. In the month of August 2019, when the appellant was asked to pay the remaining amount, he paid Rs. 5000/- in cash. Thereafter, when appellant stopped making the payment of remaining amount, the respondent issued a legal demand notice dated 11.02.2021 to which the appellant had also replied through his counsel. After receiving reply of legal notice complainant went to the house of appellant, the appellant requested him not to initiate legal proceedings and also demanded property papers in return of payment. Respondent assured him that property papers shall be returned only after receiving payment of Rs. 6,95,000/- Accordingly, the accused, in order to discharge his liability, issued one cheque bearing no. 105656 dated 25.02.2021 amounting to Rs. 6,95,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Saket, New Delhi.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R/O 07 vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 March, 2016

23 As far as Ld. trial court is concerned, they have dealt in its analysis on page 48 regarding "best before date". However, the said analysis does not apply to the facts of the case as such dates are used in the act for the purposes of offences of "misbranding". As far as the reasoning given by Ld. Trial Court regarding the fact that CFL found the sample as "Fit for Analysis" and relied upon the result as conclusive does not fit in the present case. As far as the conclusiveness of CFL report is concerned, the same is conclusive regarding the contents/facts narrated therein and not for other purposes. The accused can show that the result is on the basis of examination done on a sample which was not fit for analysis on the day of examination. Moreover, as far as the philosophy of PFA Act and such legislations are concerned, the purpose is that analysis of food article be done to ascertain as to whether it is fit for human consumption or not. One criteria of food article for human consumption is, the shelf life of article. So, to determine whether the article is fit for consumption, it has to be taken before its expiry period or before its period of shelf life. Similarly, the examination of the said article be done keeping CA No. 60/15 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State page 8 of 9 9 in view that it is "Fit For Human Consumption" and thus "Fit for Analysis". As discussed above the formalin can enhanced the shelf life for one month and thereafter despite the presence of formalin, the shelf life expires and the food cannot be used for human consumption or for analysis. So, it can be said that the sample analyzed after four months cannot give accurate results as suggested in para 8 onwards of Chanan Lal judgment.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 15 January, 2015

10. With above observations revision petition is decided. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 28.01.15 at 10.00am. Revision file be consigned to record room and TCR be sent to the concerned court with copy of this order. Announced in the Open Court On day of 15th January' 2015 (UMED SINGH GREWAL) ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS) North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 10 of10
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 July, 2019

Learned Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Mathura is hereby directed to expedite the Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2018 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) and conclude the same in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R K Gautam - Full Document

State vs . on 27 August, 2010

It has been held in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2007 titled as Rakesh Kumar V. State that "the statement made by accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution." So, PW1 Akhilesh PW4 Shivangi Verma and admission of accused persons in their statements recorded U/s. 313 CrPC has corroborated the fact that Trilok Verma was lastly seen with accused Anju Verma, Purshottam Lal and Baljinder @ Bobby on 30/09/2005 at about 2.00 a.m. night. From the deposition of PW4 Shivangi Verma, the prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that they all had gone to Rohini in the car, where they were dropped.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Supreme Court Vide Judgment Dated ... vs (1). Rakesh Kumar Jain @ R. K. Jain on 25 February, 2013

323; Rakesh v. State, 2010 (2) JCC 1529 by the High Court of Delhi urged that the Ld. MM who recorded the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW 9/A dated 26.04.2011 did not make a sincere endevour to ascertain voluntarily nature of the confession; that the Ld. MM did not ask PW­9 Binod Aggarwal the reason why he wanted to make a statement that would ultimately go against his self interest in the course of trial; that Ld. MM did not administer the caution, warning the accused specifically about the first part of sub section II of section 164 Cr.P.C that "he was not bound to make a statement and that if he makes one it may be used against him as evidence in relation to his complexity in the offence at trial" and that Ld. MM failed to ensure against any kind of torture or absence of extraneous coercion and did not grant him time for reflection.
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh @ Ramkesh @ Rakesh Kumar Sahani vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 4 November, 2025

4. It is further stated that being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal registered as Appeal/Case No.1978/2024, Computerized Case No. C202408000001978 (Rakesh Vs. State of U.P.) and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the opposite party No. 2/Divisional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda without dealing with the factual aspects of the case and the grounds taken in the appeal as well as law on the subject.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next