Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (6.82 seconds)
Documents citing Vinod Kumar Sethi And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 30 March, 1982

Gowri vs Satish on 3 August, 1990

In the course of the Judgment, Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court have made a reference to the observation of the Supreme Court in PRATIBHA RANI v. SURAJ KUMAR AND ANR., With reference to the totality of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is pointed out by the Calcutta High Court that the Supreme Court has quoted the observations in Vinod Kumar Sethi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. rather approvingly. It is significant to note here that this Court also had occasion to consider the scope of the power of the Court exercising jurisidiction under the Hindu Marriage Act with reference to Section 27 thereof.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar & Anr on 12 March, 1985

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. before whom the matter came up in the High Court relied strongly upon the observations made by a Full Bench of that High Court in Vinod Kumar Sethi & Ors. v. State of PunJab and Ors.(l) and has observed in his judgment that the mere handing over of the articles of dowry of stridhana to the husband and other relations at the time of the marriage does not constitute entrustment in the sense of the word used in ss. 405 and 406 I P.C. and that it does not amount to passing of dominion over those articles to them. The learned Judge has observed that there can be such an entrustment only by a subsequent conscious act of volition ` and that in the absence of such an act any allegations of breach of trust between the husband and wife cannot constitute an offence under s.406 I.P.C. The learned Judge has further observed that between the husband and wife there is always a jointness of control and possession of the properties of the spouse within the matrimonial home and that it goes against the very concept of entrustment of his or her property by one spouse to the other.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 372 - S M Ali - Full Document

S.Sowmya … vs T.Mukundan on 10 May, 2023

29. For these reasons, the custody or entrustment of stridhan with the husband does not amount to a partnership in any sense of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/20 Crl.O.P.No.26912 of 2019 term and therefore, we are unable to agree with the view taken in Vinod Kumar case as also with the opinion expressed by our Brother on the points arising in the case.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Lal Yadav And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 1 February, 1989

18. With great respect we are not in agreement with the view taken in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (supra) as it is in conflict with the decisions of the Privy Council in the case of Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad (1945) 46 Cri LJ 413 (supra) and the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha 1982 Cri LJ 819 (supra) and also for the reasons given by us earlier.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Shiju.M.Thankachan vs The State Of Kerala on 27 December, 2006

23. It is clear from the above decision in Vinod Kumar's case cited (supra), it has been decided by the Supreme Court after considering all the decisions on this aspect including B.Jayraj v. State of Andrapadesh (2014 (4) SCALE 81) that merely because a witness turned hostile, court need not brush aside his evidence in toto and to the extent he is supporting the case of the prosecution can be relied on by the court and that can be taken along with other evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution and base conviction of the accused on that basis. Mere non- examination of Shyamkumar whose name was mentioned in Ext.P1 for proving the prior demand and payment alone is not sufficient to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. It will be seen from Ext.P1 that subsequent demands were Crl. A. No.60 of 2007 34 made to PW1 and even on the previous day of the incident the demand was made and it was on the basis of the assurance given by PW1 that he would pay that amount that the accused had come there on the next day. So it is clear from this that non-examination of Shyamkumar in this case is not fatal as claimed by the defence. So under the circumstances, court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had demanded and received illegal gratification in abuse of his official position for getting personal gain for himself for discharging his official duty and thereby he had committed misconduct coming under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act coupled with Section 7 of the Act and rightly convicted him for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the finding does not call for any interference.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Nirmala Gupta vs Ravendra Kumar Alias Munna Gupta on 5 February, 1996

The aforesaid observations revealed that the Supreme Court had approved the decision of the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar's case (supra), as far as Section 27 of the Act is concerned and, therefore, there is no scope for further interpretation of Section 27. We, therefore, accept the interpretation put upon Section 27 by various other cases that restricted to a property jointly belonging to both the spouses and not to individual property of any one of them.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Shakti Kumar Agrawala vs Stata Of Orissa on 8 August, 1991

PW-2 admitted in his evidence that he was reverted to the post of Sanitary Inspector after being appointed as Food Inspector in 1974. Although he denied the defence suggestion that no notification regarding his appointment had been published in the Official Gazette and asserted that he could produce the same, the fact remains that no such notification was produced in Court. On 10-5-1991, when the case was taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the State took time to reply on the question of validity of appointment of PW 2. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the State sought a number of adjournments and ultimately on 4-7-1991 copies of notification dated 18-4-1974 issued by the Director of Health and FP. Services, Orissa regarding appointment of PW 2 and 20 others as Food Inspectors and notification dated 6-6-1974 issued by the State Government defining to local areas of the Food Inspectors were produced. Apart from the fact that the Court cannot take judicial notice of these notifications, it is clear from the notification dated 10-4-1974 that the same has not been issued by the State Government and further these notifications have not been published in the Orissa Gazette. That being so, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appointment of PW 2 as Food Inspector, Bolangir was not in accordance with law. The effect of such invalid appointment came up for consideration in the case of Vinod Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1982 (1) FAC 311 and in Hira Lal v. State of U. P. 1984 (1). FAC 136 and there it has been held that in case of invalid appointment the prosecution is liable to fail inasmuch as the person purporting to act as Food Inspector had no authority to take any sample of food. Having due regard to the aforesaid decisions. I also held in the same way.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next