Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Uma Shankar Sahay vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 11 March, 1998

Krishnan Ananth And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 16 May, 2006

12. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the allegation made in the complaint at best reflect breach of contract. Such breach of contract would amount to cheating only if intention to cheat was existing at the every inception. If such intention developed later on, this would not amount to cheating. This was precisely observed by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika (supra).
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shanti Lal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 25 ... on 20 December, 2019

1. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in WPS No.3595/2019 (Dr. Uma Shankar Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh and another) and other connected petitions, 5 decided on 22.07.2019. The issue pertains to petitioners' prayer for grant of age relaxation for the recruitment of Assistant Professors vide advertisement dated 18.01.2019, published on 23.01.2019.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Maqbool Mian @ Maqbool Ansari And Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 12 December, 2002

4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Court below committed error in passing the order without appreciating the legal position. It is further submitted that the case was initiated on the basis of the complaint case as well as the petitioners had been accused at the early stage and, therefore, they cannot be summoned under Section 319, Cr PC which provides that any person not being the accused is to be summoned but the petitioners had been the accused at the early stage. The counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the case of Uma Shankar Sahay v. State of Bihar and Anr., 1998 (2) East Cr C 423 (Pat) and Kansraj v. State of Punjab, 2002 Cr LJ 2993.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - D N Prasad - Full Document

Satya Narayan Thakur & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 31 August, 2010

3. It was first contended by learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in a Case Sohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in A.I.R. 1990 SC 2158 and decision of this court in a case of Uma -2- Shankar Sahay Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 1998(2) BLJ 783; that since the two petitioners were made accused at the instance of informant in his complaint petition which formed basis of institution of Sarai P.S. Case No. 72/1995 along with another Chandrika Singh, but, police after investigation submitted charge sheet against non-petitioner and after accepting exoneration of the petitioners the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepting the outcome of the investigation took cognizance and committed the case only with respect to said Chandrika Singh during whose trial on prayer of informant under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners have been summoned, but in view of the above two decisions, there is no application of the provision as provided under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code once these two petitioners were exonerated at the very initial stage while accepting the final form submitted by police in exonerating them.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Chandra - Full Document
1