Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 447 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Madan Lal vs State Of J&K on 6 August, 1997

Bhupender Singh Bisht vs State Rep. By on 18 August, 2015

by the Investigation Officer from the bed room where the alleged occurrence had taken place should have confirmed the victim version that the Accused attempted to indulge in sexual intercourse, by the time, the mother and grandmother entered the house immediately he had rubbed his genital organ on the bed spread and left the room. Believing these version, the bed spread was seized and subjected to forensic examination. The result of the forensic examination was otherwise. Therefore, the Prosecution had not examined the forensic expert who had examined and given report about the same. After closing of Prosecution Witnesses, the Accused had summoned the Forensic Expert, as the report of the forensic examination had not supported the case of the Prosecution and the Prosecution had not summoned the Forensic Expert. Therefore, the Forensic Expert was examined as D.W-1. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in (1997) 7 SCC 677 in the case of Madan Lal Vs. State of J&K is found acceptable to the facts of the case. When there are two views possible, the Court has to consider or lean towards the acquittal. The learned Sessions Judge ignored the evidence available before the trial Court particularly in the cross- examination of the mother of the victim/P.W-1 and the cross-examination 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis .Crl.A.No.359 of 2016.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D C Yadav vs General Manager E C Rly on 7 July, 2025

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi vs State of Bihar and Others SLP (C) No.26226 of 2008 decided on May 19, 2010 [(2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 576] referring to the judgements in the case of Madan Lal v. State of J&K, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P., Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines has categorically held that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that 19% marks has been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria and the process of selection.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Irfan S/O Mohd. Khalil vs . on 23 July, 2011

It was held that previous statement of prosecutrix are admissible in evidence under section 157 of the Evidence Act and this proposition of law was recognized by Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, 1988 SC 386, where statement made by the prosecutrix to her mother soon after the incident was accepted to be corroborative piece of evidence. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, information of the incident given by prosecutrix to her mother after the incident, thereafter to the doctor and then to ld. MM are corroborative piece of evidence against the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avenue Realities And Developers ... vs Appropriate Authority Of Income Tax ... on 29 March, 2012

"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P.14, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal15, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam16 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines17."
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S Khanna - Full Document

Viney Kumar Gupta And Ors vs State Of J&K And Ors on 14 December, 2012

In Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Mir - Full Document

Awadhesh Kumar Yadav vs General Manager, N E Rly on 6 February, 2026

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi vs State of Bihar and Others SLP (C) No.26226 of 2008 decided on May 19, 2010 [(2010) 12 Supreme RITU RAJ SINGH 15 | P a g e Court Cases 576] referring to the judgements in the case of Madan Lal v. State of J&K, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P., Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines has categorically held that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that 19% marks has been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria and the process of selection.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shrawan Kumar Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 December, 2020

In Madan Lal v. State of J&K, the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. This Court held as follows: (SCC p. 493, para 9) "9. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next