Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Secy. Of State And Anr. vs Firm Jhaddu Lal Hazari Lal on 11 April, 1933

State vs . Hori Lal & Ors. on 9 June, 2023

19.14 Witness denied the suggestion that he had not stated the above-said fact to the police or that only accused Hori Lal, Gayatri, Babloo and JCL (R ) were present at his house. He State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 11 further replied that after reaching at the spot, he took his wife and bhanja (Virender) inside his house and many persons of the street had gathered there. He further replied that public persons also helped to pacify the matter at that time. He again replied that at that time, when he reached at his house, no public person intervened in the matter. He replied that while he had taken his wife and bhanja inside his house, accused persons remained present there.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Hori Lal on 19 November, 2024

1) Case ID : 2316/2018 2) The date of commission of offence : : 30.10.2016 3) The name of the complainant : Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Paltan Yadav 4) The name & parentage of accused : Hori Lal S/o Parhlad 5) Ld. APP for the State : Dr. Deepak Saini 6) Offence involved : 279/337/338 IPC 7) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 8) Final order : Acquitted 9) Judgment reserved on : 19.11.2024 10) Judgment announced on : 19.11.2024 Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2024.11.19 18:09:23 +0530 State Vs Hori Lal FIR no. 469/2016 5 of 5 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Brijlal on 30 October, 1961

3. It has been contended by Sri D. D. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the goods having been packed against the railway instructions without a protecting covering of tarpaulin and there being no evidence that the wagon was leaking at the time of loading, it was for the plaintiff to prove the negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration. He has contended that Section 74-A gives complete protection to the railways where goods have been despatched at railway's risk without compliance with the instructions given for packing of goods. For this purpose the parties have relied upon the authorities of Secy. of State v. Firm Jhaddu Lal Hazari Lal, AIR 1933 All 460, Manickam Chettiar v. Union of India, AlR 1960 Mad 149, Dominion of India v. Guruprosad Ram Gupta, AIR 1949 Cal 679 and M. and S. M. Rly., Co., Ltd. v. Ravi Singh Deepsing and Co., AIR 1935 Cal 811, and Triloki Nath v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1951 All 489.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baddu @ Lal Chand And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 February, 2023

Till the next date of listing no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in Case No. 130 of 2020 - (State Vs. Baddu @ Lal Chand & Ors), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur (arising out of Case Crime No. 125 of 2018), pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - II, Jaunpur.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1