Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Madan Mohan Sharma And Ors. vs Smt. Renuka Sharma on 11 February, 1981

Pankaj Sharma vs . Renu Sharma on 2 February, 2013

8. The petitioner/non­applicant/husband has disputed the salary of the applicant/wife being Rs. 18,000/­ per month only. According to him, the applicant/wife is serving in the grade of Rs. 4000­5000 being her basic pay, and her gross monthly Pankaj Sharma Vs. Renu Sharma 4 salary is around Rs. 26,000/­ pm. Besides the petitioner/non­applicant/husband alleges that applicant/wife is engaged profitably in the work giving private tuition, but applicant/wife has concealed all the facts from the Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahadeo vs State on 1 May, 2018

(4 of 5) [CRLR-114/1999] For the purpose of offence under sec.471 IPC, one of essential ingredients is knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is forged one {1981 CrLJ 1301: Madan Mohan Sharma And Ors. vs Smt. Renuka Sharma} but the mere fact that the accused was found to be in possession of the forged document would not justify the conclusion, in absence of any other material that he knew or had reasons to believe that the document was forged {AIR 1963 SC 822:
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V K Mathur - Full Document

Mahadeo vs State on 25 April, 2018

(4 of 5) [CRLR-114/1999] For the purpose of offence under sec.471 IPC, one of essential ingredients is knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is forged one {1981 CrLJ 1301: Madan Mohan Sharma And Ors. vs Smt. Renuka Sharma} but the mere fact that the accused was found to be in possession of the forged document would not justify the conclusion, in absence of any other material that he knew or had reasons to believe that the document was forged {AIR 1963 SC 822:
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V K Mathur - Full Document
1