Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 225 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Mahabir Kishore & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 1989

Kishor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2020

,rn~ }kjk ;g funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkosnd 10 ikS/ks dk ¼Qy nsus okys isM+ vFkok uhe@ihiy½ jksi.k djsxk rFkk mls vius vkl iMksl esa isM+ dh lqj{kk ds fy, ckM+ yxkus dh O;oLFkk djuh gksxh rkfd ikS/kk lqjf{kr jg ldsA vkosnd dk ;g drZO; gS fd u dsoy ikS/kksa dks yxk;k tk,s] cfYd mUgsa iks"k.k Hkh fn;k tk,A ^^^o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gSA^^ vkosnd fo'ks"kr% 6&8 QhV ÅWaps ikS/ks@isM+ksa dks 3&4 QhV xM~<k djds yxk;sxk rkfd os 'kh?kz gh iw.kZ fodflr gks ldsaA vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djus ds fy,] vkosnd dks fjgk fd;s tkus dh fnukad ls 30 fnuksa ds Hkhrj lacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k o`{kksas@ikS/kksa ds jksi.k ds lHkh QksVks çLrqr djuk gksxsaA rRi'pkr~] fopkj.k ds lekiu rd gj rhu eghus esa vkosnd ds }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izxfr fjiksVZ çLrqr dh tk,xhA o`{kksa dh çxfr ij fuxjkuh j[kuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk drZO; gS D;ksafd i;kZoj.k {kj.k ds dkj.k ekuo vfLrRo nkao ij gS vkSj U;k;ky; vuqikyu ds ckjs esa vkosnd }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ fdlh Hkh ykijokgh dks utj vankt ugh dj ldrk gSA blfy, vkosnd dks isM+ksa dh çxfr vkSj vkosnd } kjk vuqikyu ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ çLrqr djus ds fy, funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vkonsd }kjk fd;s x;s vuqikyu dh ,d la{kfIr fjiskVZ bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;sd rhu ekg esa ¼vxys N% eghuksa ds fy,½ j[kh tk;sxh ftls fd ^^funsZ'k ^^ 'kh"kZ ds varxZr j[kk tk,xkA 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.371/2020 (Kishore Vs. State of M.P.) o`{kkjksi.k esa ;k isM+ksa dh ns[kHkky esa vkosnd dh vksj ls dh xbZ dksbZ Hkh pwd vkosnd dks tekur dk ykHk ysus ls oafpr dj ldrh gSA vkosnd dks viuh ilan ds LFkku ij bu ikS/kksa@isMksa dks jksius dh Lora=rk gksxh] ;fn og bu jksis x;s isMksa dh Vªh xkMZ ;k ckM+ yxkdj j{kk djuk pkgrk gS] vU;Fkk vkosnd dks o`{kksa ds jksi.k ds fy, rFkk muds lqj{kk mik;ksa ds fy, vko';d [kpsZ ogu djuk gksxsaA bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funsZ'k ,d ijh{k.k izdj.k ds rkSj ij fn, x, gSa rkfd fgalk vkSj cqjkbZ ds fopkj dk izfrdkj] l`tu ,oa izd`fr ds lkFk ,dkdkj gksus ds ek/;e ls lkeaktL; LFkkfir fd;k tk ldsA orZeku esa ekuo vfLrRo ds vko';d vax ds :i esa n;k] lsok] izse ,oaa d:a.kk dh izd`fr dks fodflr djus dh vko';drk gS D;ksafd ;g ekuo thou dh ewyHkwr izo`fr;ka gSa vkSj ekuo vfLrRo dks cuk, j[kus ds fy, budk iquthZfor gksuk vko';d gSA ^^;g iz;kl dsoy ,d o`{k ds jksi.k dk iz'u u gksdj cfYd ,d fopkj ds vadqj.k dk gSA^^ fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks bl vkns'k dh ,d ewyizfr vuqikyu ds fy, Hksth tk,A izekf.kr izfr fu;ekuqlkjA (Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2020.02.28 13:06:25 +05'30'
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

The Assam Power Distribution Co. ... vs Hiranya Bharali on 20 May, 2024

11. On the first two issues, this Court held that though the liability to pay arises on the consumption of electricity, the obligation to pay would arise only when the bill is raised by the licensee and that, therefore, electricity charges would become "first due" only after the bill is issued, even though the liability would have arisen on consumption. On the third issue, this Court held in Rahamatullah Khan³, that "the period of limitation of two years would commence from the date on which the electricity charges became first due under Section 56(2)". This Court also held that Section 56(2) does not preclude the licensee from raising an additional or supplementary demand after the expiry of the period of limitation in the case of a mistake or bona fide error. To come to such a conclusion, this Court also referred to Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the decision of this Court in Mahabir Kishore v. State of M.P.
Gauhati High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Star India Private Limited vs Kaleidoscope Entertainment Private ... on 8 May, 2015

In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Kishor and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 1 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, it is held by the Supreme Court that the principle of unjust enrichment requires that the defendants had been enriched by the receipt of a benefit and that this enrichment shall be at the expense of the plaintiffs and that the retention of the enrichment was unjust which justified restitution. It is held that enrichment may take the form of direct advantage to the recipient wealth such as by the receipt of money or indirect one for instance where inevitable expense has been saved. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads thus :-
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Asian Leather Limited And Anr. vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors. on 14 May, 2007

43. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record we are of the view that if a person makes payment by mistake of law, Section 72 of the Contract Act is applicable and the period of limitation is three years as prescribed by Article 133 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and the provisions of Section 17(1)(c) of that Act will be applicable so that the period will begin to run from the date of knowledge of the particular law under which the money was paid being declared void; this could be the date of the judgment of a competent Court declaring that law void. According to Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the case of a suit for relief on the ground of mistake, the period of limitation does not commence to run until the plaintiff had discovered the mistake or could with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. In a case where payment has been made under a mistake of law in contrast with a mistake of fact, generally the mistake becomes known to the party only when a Court makes a declaration as to the invalidity of the law. Though a party could, with reasonable diligence, discover a mistake of fact even before a Court makes a pronouncement, it is seldom that a person can, even with reasonable diligence, discover a mistake of law before a judgment adjudging the validity of the law. See: Mahabir Kishore and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh .
Calcutta High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 33 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2019

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from commenting upon submissions touching the 3 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-14511-2019 (RAVI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) & MCRC-12989-2019 (KISHORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) merits of the allegations and ingredients of Section 149 Cr.P.C., but looking to the fact that applicants have suffered jail incarceration since 08.10.2018, no more required for further investigation and have no criminal antecedents, therefore without commenting on merits of the case, the application deserves to be and is hereby allowed, Accordingly, it is directed that the applicants be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount in case of each of the applicant to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for their regular appearance in the trial Court during trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C with following stringent conditions:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next