Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (2.93 seconds)
Documents citing Anil vs State on 24 September, 2014

Dinesh Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022

24. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts for offence u/s 354D IPC and therefore there is no infirmity in the CA No. 313/2019 Dinesh Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Page No. 10 of 14 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.12.15 12:35:29 +0530 impugned judgment to that extent.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satish Kumar Gaur vs Principal District And Sessions Judge on 10 May, 2023

10. Under such circumstances, the present petition would be clearly covered by the decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi [2022/DHC/005039] where the Court directed that reimbursement would have to be given to similar placed persons by the DGHS. However, it will be open to the Respondent No. 1- GNCTD to initiate recovery proceedings against the hospital, if it perceives that there has been excess charging of the services offered by the hospitals. The relevant portion of the said judgment is set out below:
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Pramod Kumar Jaiswal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 1 September, 2017

28. The mere fact that there was no written agreement or rent receipt does not ipso facto prove that there does not exist any contractual/ rental relationship between the parties, inasmuch as, there is no statutory requirement that for creation of tenancy, any written agreement is pre- requisite. Even oral tenancy can be created. [Ref: Decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in Dinesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, in Crl. Appeal No. 1234/2010].
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Mridul - Full Document
1   2 Next