Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 609 (4.73 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Nawab Hussain on 4 April, 1977

State vs . : 1). Kanwaljeet Kaur @ Sonia on 1 April, 2017

She   denied   the   suggestion   that   accused Nawab   did   not   visit   the   clinic   of   Dr.   Nangia   on 03.05.2004. She denied the suggestion that Kanwaljeet kaur did not say that doctor was not going to acced or obey in the manner they wanted or that they did not take away the doctor with them or that Nawab did not say her, not to do any wrong at their back. She admitted that she did not inform her father about the occurrence. She State Vs. Nawab etc. SC No.58286/16 & 59458/16 :: 12 ::
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ndps Act:(Central District):Tis ... vs Nawab @ Khaira on 17 October, 2017

Case of prosecution is that case property i.e. three   sealed   parcels,   FSL   Form   and   copy   of   seizure memo   were   got   produced   before   Inspector R.Sriniwasan,  who  also affixed  his  seal  and  deposited                                               State v. Nawab 3  the   case   property   in   the   malkhana,   so   as   to   rule   out possibility   of   tampering   with   the   case   property.     SI Rajnikant   took   over   investigation   after   registration   of the case.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . on 18 October, 2018

(FIR no. 267/15 PS Kanjhawala)                                                                         4 of 7 Wasim was claimed to have been arrested from Rohini Jail vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/1 and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-5/2 recorded. Nawab was claimed to have been arrested on 12.8.16 vide arrest memo Ex. PW-5/3. The arrest document of Salim was not traceable on record and only his bail bond furnished before the IO was on record. He had already obtained anticipatory bail. Witness further claimed that during course of investigation he recorded statements of witnesses and after completing investigation filed charge sheet in court. He further claimed that as per information with him, witness Khurshid was not traceable. He informed that Khurshid was an accused in case FIR No. 34/16 PS Kanjhawla and had already been declared PO in that case.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sodha Tagaji A. & 89 vs State Of Gujarat Thro Secretary & 2 on 19 October, 2016

In   State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain (supra), the  Supreme   Court   has   dealt   with   the   principle   of  constructive   res­judicata   as   the   plea   not   raised   in  the   petition   could   well   have   been   raised   and   the  subsequent suit raising that plea was barred by res­ judicata.
Gujarat High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document

State vs . Nawab Etc. 1 Of 6 on 6 July, 2013

6. Above said five witnesses were the only competent witnesses who could have established identity of the accused. PW1 and PW2 are only the formal witnesses. The public witnesses did not support the prosecution case, and hence, further evidence State Vs. Nawab etc. 5 of 6 was closed because no fruitful purpose was to be served by examining the remaining witnesses. As there is no incriminating material against any of the accused, their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC were also dispensed with.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Nayab Hussain @ Bhandari on 30 September, 2022

12. Since the public persons in the present case were not joined in the investigation, the departure and the arrival entries of the police officials who State Vs. Nayab Hussain @ Bhandari; FIR No. 52/20 PS Sunlight Colony Page No. 5 of 7 apprehended the accused with the case property while on patrolling duty becomes a vital piece of evidence. However, the absence of departure and arrival entries raises suspicion on the very presence of police personnel on the spot.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanhaiya Lal Gadri vs Moef on 29 July, 2022

It is meet and proper as also in the interest of the parties that the entire question is taken into account at this stage.‖ Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabrimala Temple Review- 5J) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, (2020) 2 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench); State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, (1977) 2 SCC 806 (three-judge Bench); Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior, (1987) 1 SCC 5 (two-judge Bench) Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), (1986) 1 SCC 100 (three-judge Bench) 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504.
National Green Tribunal Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Disciple ... vs Jagat Guru Shankarcharya Jyotishpeeth ... on 22 September, 2017

429 (PC) 501 471 175 Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal Vs. His Holiness Sri La Sri Kasivasi Arulnandi Thambiran Swamiga (1974) 1 SCC 150 213, 214, 219, 221 171, 174, 177, 178 176 Sri Ramjee and others Vs. Bishwanath Pd. Sah and others AIR 1978 Patna 129 507 473 177 Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirth Swamigal Vs. Baluswami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1922 P.C. 123 266, 278 220, 225 178 Srikanti Vs. Indupuram (1866) 3 M.H.C.R. 226 509 474 179 State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others, 2006(4) SCC 683 461 450 180 State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram AIR 1962 SC 89 413 418 181 State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain AIR 1977 SC 1680 501, 540 471, 500 182 Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, AIR 1994 SC 152 459, 498 449, 469 183 Sundar Pande and others Vs. Musammat Kumari 1919 (50) Indian Cases 935 (Alld.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 273 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next