Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 81 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Kr. Jagdish Pratap Bahadur Singh And ... vs Raj Kumar Udai Pratap Bahadur Singh And ... on 22 November, 1937

Shiv Kumar vs State Of Up And 11 Others on 1 March, 2024

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Meja, Prayagraj (respondent No. 2), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide the Case No. 2074 of 2023, Computerized Case No. T202302030802074 (Shiv Bahadur vs. Amar Bahadur and others) under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments will be granted to either of the parties.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravindra Nath vs State Of Rajasthan And 3 Ors. on 30 June, 1986

In this connection it may also be pointed out that the relevant portions of the resolution dated 30th October, 1971 have been noticed by this Court and have been reproduced in the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Kumar Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1980 WLN 1. In these circumstances it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that the resolution dated 30th October, 1971 was not duly published and was therefore, not operative in law.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Bhatele Ramesh Chand vs Dr. Shyam Lal And Ors. on 24 September, 1945

Any order passed by the Special Judge under this section shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction." There is also Section 14, Clause 7 of which speaks of decrees. That they have the full force of a decree is what the sections themselves say. This Court has gone so far as to hold that in an appeal against a decree under Section 14 ad valorem court-fee is payable: vide Jagdish Pratap v. Udai Pratap ('38) 25 A.I.R. 1938 All. 97.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kamala Devi vs Bachu Lal Gupta on 29 January, 1957

an obligation to provide for; and after having regard to those circumstances if the gift can be held to be reasonable such a gift will be binding on the joint family members irrespective of the consent of the members of the family If under the law it is a moral obligation on the family to make a provision as and by way of a marriage portion and such obligation continues until it is fulfilled by a reasonable provision being made therefor, the fact that one of the sons has become indebted cannot take away the power of the father to make such a gift....In Pratap Kunwar v. Raj Bahadur Singh (3)the marriage took (1) 2 Morley's Digest 198. (3) A.I.R. 1943 Oudh 316. (2) A.L.R. 1936 Mad. 825, 827, 474 place. in 1923 and the gift was made in 1926. After held that examining the evidence the learned Judges Mst. Raj Ruer, the widow in question, did not make any "sankalpa" of the gift of fifteen villages at the on behalf of the time of her daughter's marriage. On behalf of the plaintiff it was argued before them that a Hindu widow could make a gift of her husband's immoveable property v at the time of her marriage. The learned Judges repelled this contention and held that the gift made by Mst. Raj Kuer in favour of her daughter and son-in-law was valid, even though she did not make a " sankalpa v. at the time of marriage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - S K Das - Full Document

Rashpal Singh S/O Nirmal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 November, 2024

18.8 In this regard, this Court has relied upon the dictum enunciated in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2020) 14 SCC 52 titled as K. Jagdish Vs. Udai Kumar, wherein it was opined that civil and criminal proceedings are both maintainable in respect of same set of facts, even if civil remedy is availed to the party, he is not precluded from initiating or setting in motion criminal proceedings, and for the same (Downloaded on 07/11/2024 at 10:01:59 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:43794] (15 of 20) [CRLMP-4394/2023] following principles are enumerated. Reference in this regard is made to the relevant para(s), which are reproduced as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document

Malkeet Singh S/O Jagir Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 November, 2024

18.8 In this regard, this Court has relied upon the dictum enunciated in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2020) 14 SCC 52 titled as K. Jagdish Vs. Udai Kumar, wherein it was opined that civil and criminal proceedings are both maintainable in respect of same set of facts, even if civil remedy is availed to the party, he is not precluded from initiating or setting in motion criminal proceedings, and for the same (Downloaded on 07/11/2024 at 10:02:11 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:43794] (15 of 20) [CRLMP-4394/2023] following principles are enumerated. Reference in this regard is made to the relevant para(s), which are reproduced as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document

Jagir Singh S/O Tara Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 November, 2024

18.8 In this regard, this Court has relied upon the dictum enunciated in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2020) 14 SCC 52 titled as K. Jagdish Vs. Udai Kumar, wherein it was opined that civil and criminal proceedings are both maintainable in respect of same set of facts, even if civil remedy is availed to the party, he is not precluded from initiating or setting in motion criminal proceedings, and for the same (Downloaded on 07/11/2024 at 10:02:07 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:43794] (15 of 20) [CRLMP-4394/2023] following principles are enumerated. Reference in this regard is made to the relevant para(s), which are reproduced as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document

Harmeet Singh S/O Palwinder Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 November, 2024

18.8 In this regard, this Court has relied upon the dictum enunciated in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2020) 14 SCC 52 titled as K. Jagdish Vs. Udai Kumar, wherein it was opined that civil and criminal proceedings are both maintainable in respect of same set of facts, even if civil remedy is availed to the party, he is not precluded from initiating or setting in motion criminal proceedings, and for the same (Downloaded on 07/11/2024 at 10:01:56 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:43794] (15 of 20) [CRLMP-4394/2023] following principles are enumerated. Reference in this regard is made to the relevant para(s), which are reproduced as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document

Ravinder Pal Singh S/O Shri Shangar ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 November, 2024

18.8 In this regard, this Court has relied upon the dictum enunciated in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2020) 14 SCC 52 titled as K. Jagdish Vs. Udai Kumar, wherein it was opined that civil and criminal proceedings are both maintainable in respect of same set of facts, even if civil remedy is availed to the party, he is not precluded from initiating or setting in motion criminal proceedings, and for the same (Downloaded on 07/11/2024 at 10:02:13 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:43794] (15 of 20) [CRLMP-4394/2023] following principles are enumerated. Reference in this regard is made to the relevant para(s), which are reproduced as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next