Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 203 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Anwar Khan Mehboob & Co vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others on 6 October, 1965

Anwar vs State (N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 28 September, 2018

21 Apart   from   this,   one   more   aspect   which   is   required consideration that appellant/accused has examined DW­1 Zainuddin who is the father of the appellant/accused with regard to the fact that he did not have  the knowledge about the present incident as he was not present at that time  is concerned, DW­1 Zainuddin  has deposed that   after   six   months   of   marriage   of   his   son   Yasin   with respondent/complainant   Gulshan,   she   had   started   harassing   his   son CA no. 02/18 Anwar Vs State               10/12 and other family members in order to grab the property and in this regard   D.W­1   Zainuddin   had   given   a   written   complaint   to   ACP, Women   Cell,   Nand   Nagri   against   respondent/complainant Smt.Gulshan. Therefore, he himself has controverted this fact during cross examination by Ld.Addl.PP by admitting that he did not know anything about the present incident as he was not present at that time. Thus, the testimony of DW­1 is not reliable and trustworthy.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tajuddin (Deceased) Through Lr. vs Faqruddin (Deceased) Through Lr. on 3 November, 2006

The judgment of the Revenue Board dated 1.2.1974 (Exhibit-1) was challenged by defendant Badruddin before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2225/1974 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 21.11.1983, therefore, order dated 1.2.1974 has attained finality. Certified copies of the Writ Petition No. 2225/1974, the reply to the writ petition on behalf of the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, namely, Tajuddin, and the order dated 21.11.1983, dismissing the writ petition of the defendant Badruddin against the order of the Revenue Board dated 1.2.1974, have been placed on the record along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC on 19.11.1977, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.2.1998. The order dated 1.2.1974 passed by the Revenue board is a statutory order by the statutory authority under the Statute and this was the separate and fresh cause of action for filing the present suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Khan Mehboob Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (supra) considered the principles of res-judicata and it was held that if two cause of action are separate and distinguishable then the principle of res-judicata are not applicable. The cause of action in the suit, which was decided on 7.9.1953 was altogether different whereas cause of action in the present case was the statutory order dated 1.2.1974, therefore, in these circumstances the learned lower Court committed a serious illegality in deciding the issue No. 4 relating to res-judicata against the plaintiff and thus wrongly rejected the suit on this ground. The finding of the lower Court in respect of issue No. 4 is accordingly reversed and the said issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anwar Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 October, 2021

rkfd ikS/ks 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 ÅWps 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 laacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k o`{kksas@ikS/kksa ds jksi.k ds lHkh QksVks çLrqr djus 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,xh A o`{kksa dh çxfr ij fuxjkuh j[kuk vkosnd 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 vkosnd }kjk fd;s x;s vuqikyu dh ,d la{kfIr fjiskVZ fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;sd rhu ekg esa ¼vxys N% eghuksa ds fy,½ j[kh tk;sxh fd **funsZ'k** 'kh"kZd ds varxZr j[kk tk,xkA 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 ck<+ yxkdj j{kk 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.50552/2021 (Anwar Khan Vs. The State of M.P.) 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 ,oa 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 funsZ'k vkosnd ds }kjk Lor% O;Dr dh xbZ lkeqnkf;d lsok dh bPNk ds dkj.k fn;k x;k gS tks LoSfPNd gSA ^^;g iz;kl dsoy ,d o`{k ds jksi.k dk iz'u u gksdj cfYd ,d fopkj ds vadqj.k dk gSA^^ It is expected from the applicant that he shall submit photographs by downloading the mobile application (App) prepared at the instance of High Court for monitoring the plantation though satellite/Geo-tagging.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

Anwar Khan Proprietor Of Ak Fitness vs The State on 4 November, 2023

From the aforesaid provisions and the judgment, it is evident that the respondent is legally entitled to file the complaint under section 138 of NI Act within one month from the date of cause of action that arisen under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138. The cause of action has arisen to the respondent to Page No. 4 of 5 CR No. 492/2023 Anwar Khan Vs. State file the complaint as the revisionist has failed to make the payment of the alleged amount to the respondent within the fifteen days of the receipt of alleged statutory notice dated 10.06.2019.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.R. Vasudevamurthy S/O. H.D. ... vs Hon'Ble Minister For Revenue, ... on 22 December, 2006

39. When the karaar was entered into between the parties, the lands in question stood vested in the State Government which is subject to the rights of the inamdars upon the same to register them as occupants. If at an any such karaar or contract or agreement in respect of the inam lands which were vested with State Government was to be entered into, the State should have been made a party to the same, otherwise the same is not binding upon the State Government. This position of law is laid down by the Apex Court in the case (Anwar Khan Mehboob Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh). The said karaar was also contrary to the statutory rights conferred upon the inamdars upon the lands in question under Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act and therefore it is opposed to public policy, hence the same is void abinitio in law and therefore the same is unenforceable in law, on the basis of such a karaar, the petitioners cannot seek to quash the impugned order. In view of the clear pronouncement of law by the Apex Court in the above case the karaar has no legal sanctity and therefore, either the Association or its members cannot claim right over the lands in question on the basis of such a void and illegal karaar document.
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Sanjay Bhaskar vs Sanjay Bhaskar on 20 April, 2009

"Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argues that even a wrong decision on a question of law is res judicata. It is true that the correctness or otherwise of a decision is not relevant to determine whether it is res judicata or not. But it cannot be said that all decisions on questions of law are always res judicata. The first exception to the rule that a decision on a question of law is res judicata is this : If a question of law is wrongly decided then it is res judicata only in the case in which the decision is given. But. in a subsequent case arising out of different cause of action, it is not res judicata. This exception was recognized by the Supreme Court in M/s. Anwar Khan Mehboob & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (1966) 2 SCR 40 and in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and others v. Dossibai N.B. Feejeebhoy,(1970) 3 SCR 830. The best illustration of different causes of action is provided by annual assessments by taxing authorities The cause of action in each year is different. therefore, the decision regarding the assessment of one year on a question of law wrongly decided does not act as res judicata in a subsequent assessment based on a different cause of action.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 10 May, 2016

Under the rationalized sentence structure, the punishment would vary depending upon the quantity of offending material and accordingly necessary amendments have been made in the said Act. Under the definition of new Act, 5.00 gm Heroin has been defined as small quantity and now the punishment under new Act is six months or with a fine of Rs.10,000/- or with both. The Delhi High Court in Anwar vs. State (supra) relying upon the other decisions of Delhi High Court in Ginni Devi vs. State, Hari Om Vs. State and Tahseen vs. State the view has been taken that benefit of amending provisions of N.D.P.S. Act should be extended to the people who have been awarded harsher punishment as offence was committed when the old Act was in force.
Allahabad High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Bhanwarsingh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 18 April, 1996

In Anwar v. State 1994 Cri LR (Raj) 797 (supra), a Division Bench of this Court examined the case of the petitioner for parole, who was convicted under Section 21 of the Act and it was held that Section 33 of the Act lays specific bar for suspension, remission or commutation of sentence awarded under the Act. It may be noted that in the above case, the impact of Section 32B of the Act was not examined.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anwar Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2022

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR CRA-2869-2022 (Anwar Khan Vs. State of M.P.) accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is not concerned with the case directly or indirectly. He was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty granted to him Learned trial Court has already suspended his jail sentence for a period of one month from the date of judgment. The fine amount has already been deposited by him. Disposal of appeal shall take considerable time, therefore, he prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - D K Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next