Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 179 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Punjab vs Gurmel Singh And Anr. on 11 December, 2002

Gurmel Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 September, 2025

5. Allegation against applicant in the FIR is that he was involved in demolition of old dilapidated school building situated over the plot in question and his implication in the present matter is only on the basis of being caretaker of the same plot which pertains to the mother-in-law of the applicant and over which dilapidated school building was standing which was of no use and abandoned by the Institution itself after construction of the new school building, hence no offence in pursuance to sections 324(2), 352 BNS and 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 is made out against the applicant, and as such the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 4756 of 2025 (State vs. Gurmel Singh & another) arising out of Case Crime no. 0070 of 2025 under sections 324(2), 352 BNS and 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Khutar, District Shahjahanpur is hereby set aside only in respect of applicant herein.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Havell'S India Ltd. vs Evergreen Properties on 7 February, 2008

12. The primary objection taken by Mr.Mehta to oppose the prayer of the petitioner is that the amendment if allowed would allow the petitioner to withdraw his admission which he had earlier made. That in itself, in my view, would not be valid reason to deny the prayer of amendment sought by the petitioner. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) that it is open for a party to explain the admission by seeking amendment in the written statement. It may also be noticed that consideration for allowing amendment of the plaint and allowing amendment in the written statement is different. Amendment in the written statement may be allowed even to take inconsistent plea which cannot be so allowed in the plaint. Even inconsistent plea can be allowed to be taken by way of amendment. What is required to be seen in all such cases is whether such amendment would lead to any prejudice to the other side or not. Amendment can even be allowed at a belated stage.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Singh - Full Document

State vs . Mahesh on 13 May, 2013

In State of Punjab vs. Gurmel Singh 1991(2) Recent Criminal Reporters 361 Hon'ble Court held that:­ "Where there were 20 shops nearby and the investigating officer had ample opportunity to join independent witness statement of official witnesses would not be sufficient to convict the accused. Contention of the prosecution that the police officials had no ill will to involve the accused in false case was repelled."
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Kamla on 11 October, 2013

In State of Punjab vs. Gurmel Singh 1991(2) RecentCriminal Reporters 361 Hon'ble Court held that:­ "Where there were 20 shops nearby and the investigating officer had ample opportunity to join independent witness statement of official witnesses would not be sufficient to convict the accused. Contention of the prosecution that the police officials had no ill will to involve the accused in false case was repelled."
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Smt. Surender Kaur on 7 June, 2013

In State of Punjab vs. Gurmel Singh 1991(2) Recent Criminal Reporters 361 Hon'ble Court held that:­ "Where there were 20 shops nearby and the investigating officer had ample opportunity to join independent witness statement of official witnesses would not be sufficient to convict the accused. Contention of the prosecution that the police officials had no ill will to involve the accused in false case was repelled."
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Mangal on 9 February, 2009

6. During the investigation of the case no public witnesses were joined nor there seems to be any sincere efforts having been made in this regard, when it was possible to do so as accused has been apprehended near a DTC bus depot at about 6.50 pm where the presence of public persons can not be ruled out. Reference can be made to State of Punjab Vs. Gurmel Singh 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reporters 361 Hon'ble Court held that:­ " Where there were 20 shops nearby and the investigating officer had ample opportunity to join independent witness statement of official witnesses would not be sufficient to convict the accused. Contention of the prosecution that the police officials had no ill will to involve the accused in false case was repelled."
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bijendra Kumar And Others vs Delhi Development Authority on 23 November, 2024

He also submits that evasive denial is no denial and DDA has never pleaded that the land in question is a vacant site, whereas, the demarcation report, bearing date 12.05.2016 and submitted on dated 14.05.2016, in the Court, in the matter of Ratan Singh & Ors. v. DDA, (CS No.16/2009); Baldai & Ors. v. DDA, (CS No.14/2009); Ram Chander v. DDA, (CS No.296/2009), clearly, shows the name of Smt. Baldai, Predecessor-in-interest to the appellants and her, (tin shed/shops), in Khasra No.310, in the area of 887.13 sq. yards and therefore, his submission is that the present respondent/the then defendant, i.e., DDA, can be taken to have admitted the fact that the suit land is not a vacant site and for this, he places further reliance on the decisions in case/(s), of State of Punjab v. Gurmel Singh,2003 (2) Civil Court Cases, 115, (P&H), Catarina Fernandes & Ors. v. jose Menino Rodrigues & Anr., 2013(1) Civil Court Cases, 306, (Bom.)
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sarup Singh & Anr vs Roshan Singh & Ors on 9 December, 2008

No plea was taken by the plaintiff-appellants that the sale deeds were without consideration. The execution of the sale deeds is not denied by the plaintiff appellants. Otherwise also the due execution of the three sale deeds had been proved on behalf of the defendants by examining DW2 Madho Singh and DW3 Manohar, attesting witnesses and from the testimony of DW-3 Kulwinder Singh defendant. The plaintiff- appellants being strangers to the sale deeds could not even otherwise challenge the sale deeds claiming the same to be without consideration. I am supported in my view by a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmel Singh 2003(2) Civil Court Cases-115(P & H).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R K Garg - Full Document

Parkash Kaur vs Surjit Kaur And Others on 25 August, 2010

Since the whole case of the plaintiff/appellant is that there was no consideration or lack of consideration in the sale deed dated 23.04.1993, in the case of State of Punjab (supra) this Court has held that in case of lack of consideration, a stranger to the sale deed cannot challenge the sale on the ground that it is without consideration or a paper transaction. Admittedly, Jaswant Kaur lived for another 1-½ years after the execution of the sale deed RSA No.3517 of 2008 -7- ****** (Ex.D1) and never challenged it by herself during her life time.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next