Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 485 (3.02 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004

State vs . Arvind Johri & Ors. on 18 October, 2022

14.3. A­3 further narrates that in February 2001, he shifted to Mumbai because of medical condition of his wife, his father­in­law also suffered acute cardiac problem and he could not leave Mumbai and for the purposes of operation of business certain cheques and documents were to be signed which he signed and it was Mahan Mukherjee who had conducted the entire business. Later Arvind Johri, was appointed CEO without his consent and knowledge and when he was inquiring about the business, it was assured that Arvind Johri, had vast business experience and there will be reimbursement of investment made by Rajendra S. Raikwar. Later, Mahan Mukherjee told that entire funds of the CC No. 06/12 & ID No. 64/19 Page 38 of 402 State vs. Arvind Johri. & Ors Judgment dt.18.10.2022 company are stuck and he also negotiated with the bank to get loan to make purchases for export order and then he (Rajendra S. Raikwar) was asked that in order to do certain formalities he had to sign the loan papers and accordingly bank account was opened and loan papers were signed by him under the instructions of Mahan Mukherjee but he remained in Mumbai. In this way, loan was procured from Bank till March 2003 by accused Mahan Mukherjee, accused Rajendra S. Raikwar was just assisting to come out from the crunch and he never felt any foul play as well as Arvind Johri, never informed him about the affairs of the firm. Whenever he called Mahan Mukherjee and Arvind Johri, there was standard reply that since he was not involved in the business as well as his share of investment is going to be returned, he should not bother further. When CBI started the investigation in March 2004, then he realized what actually had happened. He did not opt for defence evidence. 14.4. A­8 K.B. Relan, Branch Manager was also asked about the adverse circumstances appearing against him. There are composite replies, some circumstances were admitted to be correct. There was reply that he has no personal information and knowledge about other facts or he cannot say anything about some other circumstances vis a vis he has relied upon certain circulars of the bank and they have been referred repeatedly.
Delhi District Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

E.R.Vinod vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2016

54. It is also relevant to note in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Chauhan's case and also in Johri Mal's case [(2004) 4 SCC 714], that Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. does not envisage any 'extension' or 'renewal' of the term of appointment. Whenever the original term is expired, it becomes a process of fresh selection and appointment, though it may involve re-appointment of O.P.(KAT)No.90 OF 2016 67 the same person. This means, all the steps have to be started afresh and a 'panel' has to be prepared in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, ultimately leading to appointment of a competent person from the 'panel'. Admittedly, the original term of appointment of the petitioner, as per Annexure A1, came to an end on 10.04.2016. Before the end of the said term, the petitioner submitted a request expressing willingness to continue, upon which the District Collector sought for the remarks of the District and Sessions Judge. As per Annexure-A4, the concerned Sub Judge/ Addl.Sessions Judge opined that there was nothing objectionable and that the term could be renewed/extended. The position was intimated by the District and Sessions Judge to the District Collector as per his letter dated 01.03.2016, based on which, recommendation was sent by the District Collector on the same date, to the Government, as per Annexure-A5, in turn leading to renewal of term as per Annexure-A6 G.O. From the proceedings, it is explicitly clear that, but for seeking for the suitability of the petitioner alone, to have his term extended, no preparation of any 'panel' ( which necessarily has to contain names of more persons than 'one') has been made by the District Collector, in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge, making the Government to have O.P.(KAT)No.90 OF 2016 68 the option to choose the most competent person who gets included in the 'panel'. Since no 'panel' has been prepared by the District Collector, issuance of Annexure-A6 G.O., does not prevent the Government from rectifying the mistake by appropriate means and to get a proper 'panel' prepared and forwarded by the District Collector, in compliance with the relevant provisions of law. It is open for the petitioner also to seek for a chance to be considered in such exercise and if he is found fit, it is open for the Government to have him appointed as well; with regard to which this Court does not intend to express anything.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - A Narendran - Full Document

Ch Chaitanya vs The State Of Ap on 18 August, 2025

23. I entirely agree with my learned Brother that the issues which are the subject-matter of these appeals such as issues relating to scope and interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC"), 17 the issues relating to appointment, renewal, extension of tenure of Public Prosecutor/District Government Counsel, their nature and lastly, provisions of (U.P. Government) Legal Remembrance's Manual and, in particular, provisions dealing with such appointment/renewal/extension of tenure, etc. remain no more res integra and stand authoritatively decided by a Bench of three Judges in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal [State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714] .
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chinnam Ramakrishna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 August, 2025

23. I entirely agree with my learned Brother that the issues which are the subject-matter of these appeals such as issues relating to scope and interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC"), 17 the issues relating to appointment, renewal, extension of tenure of Public Prosecutor/District Government Counsel, their nature and lastly, provisions of (U.P. Government) Legal Remembrance's Manual and, in particular, provisions dealing with such appointment/renewal/extension of tenure, etc. remain no more res integra and stand authoritatively decided by a Bench of three Judges in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal [State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714] .
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Pandey vs State Of U P And 17 Others on 7 May, 2019

We find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. From the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra), which has been reiterated in the Uttar Pradesh State Law Officers' Association (supra) and Johri Mal (supra), we find that the State is not expected to appoint persons with political affinity with the party in power and appointment made in the arbitrary manner for political consideration will be amenable to judicial review and is liable to be quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

U.P. Shaskiya Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti, ... vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secretary ... on 6 January, 2012

130. We are afraid to uphold the argument of the learned counsel representing the State of U.P. The record produced before the Court does not show that the State has applied its mind to the judgment of Virendra Pal Singh Rana(supra), Shailendra Kumar Ojha (supra), Johri Mal (supra) and even recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hirendra Pal Singh (supra); rather the State seems to have issued the impugned order in violation of the judgment of Apex Court (supra) and mandamus issued by the Division Bench of this Court (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 142 - Cited by 4 - D P Singh - Full Document

Saroj Kanti Mukherjee vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 December, 2013

In support of the contention of the Purulia petition that the existing panel was scraped without calling for any representation and without following the provisions of the Legal Remembrancer Manual and that the same lacked transparency, reliance was placed on All India Reporter 2004 Supreme Court page 3800 (State of U.P. & Ors. v. Johri Mal). The case relates to interpretation of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the provisions of the Legal Remembrancer Manual of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Considering the provisions of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the various provisions of the Legal Remembrancer Manual as obtained in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Apex Court at paragraph 46 held, the State normally would be bound to follow the principles laid down in the Legal Remembrancer Manual. The provisions of the Legal Remembrancer Manual obtaining in the State of Uttar Pradesh as quoted in the said judgment and our State, are different.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next