Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.90 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Charan vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 19 September, 1978

Badri Narayan vs Addl. Commissioner, And Others on 10 February, 2014

"3.The aforesaid single judge authority of Babu Ram stands impliedly overruled by Full Bench authority of Ram Charan V. State of U.P., AIR 1979 All. 114 decided on 19.9.1978. Taking note of the aforesaid Explanation in paragraphs 33 to 39 of the aforesaid Full Bench authority it has been held that decision of consolidation Courts given after 24.1.1971 in respect of declaration of right in any manner are to be ignored. First sentence of para 34 of the aforesaid Full Bench authority is quoted below :
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Dr. Mrs. Mrunalini Devi Puar And Anr. vs Gaekwad Investment Corporation Pvt. ... on 28 September, 1992

He also pointed out that the withdrawal application (97 of 1992, dated March 18, 1992) has already been rejected by the High Court on April 20, 1992. He also pointed out that both these applications were opposed by the respondents who are now pressing for stay of these proceedings. He, therefore, concluded that neither the identity of the party nor the identity of the issues and reliefs have been established and as the provisions of Sections 10 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the present proceedings, the request for stay should be rejected. He also referred to the decision in Ram Charan v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 All 114, in which it was held that the provisions of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code come into operation only when the subject-matter of the two sets of the proceedings is identical. Shri Desai also pleaded that even if the Bench comes to a conclusion to stay the proceedings in the exercise of the inherent powers of the Board as per provisions of Regulation 44, his request pending from February 20, 1992, for interim reliefs should be considered.
Company Law Board Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Karan Singh S/O Daya Ram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ... on 13 August, 2007

In this connection reference may be made to various decisions of the apex Court (some of which were mentioned in our earlier order dated 31.8.06), viz.Gur Charan v. State AIR 1978 SC 179, Mahboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharasthra AIR 2004 SC 2890, Panchanan Misra v. Digambar Misra AIR 2005 SC 1299, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan that if there are apprehensions in the mind of the prosecution that the accused are tampering with witnesses who are turning hostile, it would tie desirable for the appropriate Courts to cancel the bails granted to the accused.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ratan Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 7 October, 2025

8. Even in the case of Ram Charan V. State of U.P. and others; 2018 (36) LCD 1178, this Court noticing the distinction between the concept of public order and breach of law, by relying upon the earlier decisions of the Apex Court and this Court in paragraphs 11 to 18, have considered the requisite which is required to be noticed while considering an application for grant or revocation of an arms license. The relevant paras read as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Ram Manohar Singh Alias Pappu Singh vs State Of U.P.Thro.Prin.Secy.Home ... on 27 October, 2025

8. Even in the case of Ram Charan V. State of U.P. and others; 2018 (36) LCD 1178, this Court noticing the distinction between the concept of public order and breach of law, by relying upon the earlier decisions of the Apex Court and this Court in paragraphs 11 to 18, have considered the requisite which is required to be noticed while considering an application for grant or revocation of an arms license. The relevant paras read as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Shyam Bihari @ Lalla Pandey vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow on 30 October, 2025

8. Even in the case of Ram Charan V. State of U.P. and others; 2018 (36) LCD 1178, this Court noticing the distinction between the concept of public order and breach of law, by relying upon the earlier decisions of the Apex Court and this Court in paragraphs 11 to 18, have considered the requisite which is required to be noticed while considering an application for grant or revocation of an arms license. The relevant paras read as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Moinuddin vs State Of U.P. Thru Secyreatry Deptt. Of ... on 27 March, 2023

14. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The respondent no.3 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of licence in accordance with law considering the dictum which has been noticed by this Court in Mewa Lal (supra) and Ram Charan (supra) within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Sanjeev Kumar Alias Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of U.P.Through Secy. Home ... on 11 November, 2025

11. Even in the case of Ram Charan V. State of U.P. and others; 2018 (36) LCD 1178, this Court noticing the distinction between the concept of public order and breach of law, by relying upon the earlier decisions of the Apex Court and this Court in paragraphs 11 to 18, have considered the requisite which is required to be noticed while considering an application for grant or revocation of an arms license. The relevant paras read as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next