Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 127 (2.69 seconds)
Documents citing Lokesh Gupta And Another vs Sunita Dewangan And Others 106 ... on 28 November, 2017

Shri Kamal Gupta vs Smt. Krishna Pushya on 20 May, 2023

10.10 The Consignee agent Agreement relied upon by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/D4 contains Clause No. 13, and it says that CS (Comm) No. 144/2020 Kamal Gupta Vs. Krishna Pushya 11 of 18 "The consignment agent shall sell the goods only to Area Business Channel Partner, i.e. Distributors, School supplier, Corporate Supplier, Retailer and Modern Retail, appointed by the company representative and to any other party as per the written direction of the company." It does not mention nor permits the consignment agent to sell the goods to another consignment agent and if any such sale was to be made, then as per the said Agreement, it was to be made as per the written directions of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. There is nothing on record to suggest that the principal company ever gave any written direction to the plaintiff to sell the goods to the defendant. Hence, any sale, as alleged by the plaintiff to the defendant, was violative of the terms and conditions of the said Agreement. 10.11 Even the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff and against which the goods were allegedly sold to the defendant have not been duly proved. PW1 was confronted with the said invoices Ex.PW1/3 (colly.) and he deposed that they bear the signatures of his employees but could not name the said employee who signed upon it saying that they pertain to the year 2017. He further was unable to say if the signatures on the said invoices were of one Juria, an employee of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and explained that in his warehouse, the support staff of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. also used to remain present and Juria maybe one of them. This shows that he had not denied the signatures on the said invoices to be of an employee of M/s Maped India Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, it cannot be said that the said invoices have been raised by the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Geeta Devi on 27 September, 2025

33. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: "(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot SHARAD be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If GUPTA there be any exaggeration or immaterial Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Geeta Devi FIR No. 1361/2015 PS Dabri Page 17 of 23 Date: 2025.09.27 17:25:44 +0530 embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kavita Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 January, 2025

5. Considering the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court-I, Gorakhpur is hereby directed to decide the prayer for interim maintenance made at the behest of petitioners in Maintenance Petition No.332 of 2022 (Kavita Gupta And Another Vs. Ashish @ Sonu Gupta) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Deepak Gupta vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 13 February, 2026

1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals filed jointly by two brothers, namely, Deepak Gupta and Anil Gupta arise out of a common award dated 13th August, 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in claim petition Nos.708/Claim titled Deepak Gupta and another v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others and 709/Claim titled Deepak Gupta and another v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed both the claim petitions on the ground that the claim petitioners had not arrayed their sisters as claimants.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Deepak Gupta vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 13 February, 2026

1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals filed jointly by two brothers, namely, Deepak Gupta and Anil Gupta arise out of a common award dated 13th August, 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in claim petition Nos.708/Claim titled Deepak Gupta and another v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others and 709/Claim titled Deepak Gupta and another v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed both the claim petitions on the ground that the claim petitioners had not arrayed their sisters as claimants.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Pooja Kumari vs Rahul Gupta on 22 January, 2026

In view of the above, we dispose of the transfer petition and direct the transfer of case bearing Matrimonial Case No. 860 of 2025 titled as “Rahul Gupta vs. Pooja Kumari” pending before the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh KAPIL TANDON Date: 2026.01.23 17:01:37 IST Reason: to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patna, Bihar.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P S Narasimha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next