Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 100 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Rajendra Kumar Bhadu vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 8 February, 2010

Sessions Judge-03 (South) vs State on 9 December, 2016

10. No doubt, there is some contradiction in the depositions of PW-3 Pawan Kumar and PW-4 Kavita Kumari as regards CA No. 2/16 6/7 Reena Pandit Vs. State the place where PW-3 Pawan Kumar was present at the time of incident. These are minor contradictions which can be safely ignored. In-fact, appellant in her appeal has cited various judgments in support of legal proposition that normal discrepancy can be ignored if not material.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manmohan Singh vs M/S Ankur Enterprises on 17 May, 2011

Perusal of the aforesaid two judgments makes it clear that judgment in case of Prakash Chand (supra) cannot hold field. For clarity, it is necessary to mention that Section 145 of the N.I. Act is enabling provision for the complainant as the word 'may' has been used for his evidence on affidavit. It is not mandatory that SBCWP No.367/2011 - Manmohan Singh vs. M/s Ankur Enterprises & orther connected matters Order dt: 17/5/2011 6/10 complainant has to give his evidence on affidavit only. However, when the complainant chooses to give his evidence on affidavit during the course of enquiry, trial and or other proceeding, it cannot be said that such evidence on affidavit can be allowed during the course of trial alone. It is a settled law that no word of statutory provision can be left out for the purpose of giving interpretation. The word 'enquiry' used under Section 145 gets no meaning if evidence by the complainant on affidavit is not allowed before issuance of process as per Section 204 of Cr.P.C. If the intention of the legislature would have been that evidence by the complainant on affidavit can be given during the course of trial alone, then there was no reason to insert words 'enquiry' and 'other proceeding' in Section 145 of N.I. Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Sangam Kumari Sain vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 September, 2020

In light of such limited submission, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the (Downloaded on 11/09/2020 at 08:56:38 PM) (2 of 2) [CW-8750/2020] representation of the petitioner, while keeping into consideration the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Rupa Ram Meghwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10050/2018), decided on 25.07.2018, within a period of 60 days from today, by passing a speaking order strictly in accordance with law.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Shanker Singh Rathore Son Of Shri Rewat ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 January, 2019

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 07/01/2019 Matter comes up on the above-noted miscellaneous application number 20/2019, with a prayer for clarification of the order dated 24th January, 2018, wherein the State-respondents were directed to accord notional benefits to the petitioner applying the principle declared in the case of Smt. Sunita Rathore v. State (Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 07:51:09 PM) (3 of 4) [WMAP-20/2019] of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP Number 8722 of 2010, decided on 22nd November, 2011.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V S Siradhana - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next