Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Ramesh Kumar vs The Regional Manager, Punjab National ... on 16 April, 2007

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Virender Singh Chauhan on 15 May, 2019

16. The conclusion of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that there was unexplained delay in registration of FIR and which was one of the ground of acquittal of accused is also challenged in the appeal. Reliance is placed on Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab (2001) & Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2005). It is also stated that A.K. Pandey, Inspector, CBI has explained reasons for delay in registration of FIR.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Bijender Singh on 3 November, 2020

Further, in the case of, Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab (1993) Cri L.J. 1800 (SC), it was held that, there is no need for identification parade where the witnesses already knew who the assailants were. TIP is not a sine qua non in every case, that is, if the facts and circumstances of a case conclusively establish the guilt of the accused, then, there is no need to hold TIP. So, in the present case, TIP of accused was not necessary.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Sanjay Chaubey vs M/S Continental Arts on 12 February, 2008

12 The AR for workman has though made a sincere endeavour to convince that the enquiry was unfair, improper and lopsided, however, to decide whether an enquiry was unfair and improper the ultimate test is the test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing. In the present case it cannot be said that workman was not granted a fair opportunity to put forth his case. In fact, sufficient notices were sent both through post as well as through publication in newspaper about the enquiry. He was granted repeated opportunities to participate but he refused to join. 13 In a recent case, reported as Ramesh Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank, 2000 LLR 682, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that An enquiry which has been held ex-parte is not violative of principles of natural justice when the delinquent officer despite information did not participate in the proceedings.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal vs M/S D.D. Industries Ltd on 23 July, 2008

11 It is no longer res integra that while holding a domestic enquiry rules of natural justice are of supreme importance. These principles though not codified canons are nonetheless principles engrained into the conscience of every man and have been well settled through judicial decisions. The rule of audi alteram partem i.e. hear the other side, constitutes one of the basis elements of fair hearing. However, equally well propounded is the rule that principles of natural justice cannot be put in straight jacket formula and cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the workman though alleges that the enquiry is unjust and unfair on account of denial of an opportunity to him to participate and defend himself and for violation of principles of fair hearing, but as discussed above in detail, actually the workman had due notice of the enquiry proceedings being conducted against him. He had already 10 ID No. 92/2006 been served with charge sheet. His admission of getting the letter dated 02.12.05 prepared on 01.12.05, constitutes a prime factor indicating that since beginning the workman was not inclined to participate in the enquiry. 12 In a recent case Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case reported as 'Ramesh Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank, 2000 LLR 682' observed that "An enquiry which has been held ex-parte is not violative of principles of natural justice when the delinquent officer despite information did not participate in the proceedings."
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar vs The State on 30 October, 2013

There is no quarrel over the findings returned by our own High Court, in cases referred above. So far as contradictions / improvements in the statement of complainant in this case is concerned, though there are some improvements in the statement given by complainant in the court qua her statement given to police. For example, it was not disclosed by said witness in her statement (Ex.PW1/A) that no one could hear her cry, when she called her bua (father's sister) due to sound of DJ and hence none came for her rescue. She did not disclose to the IO in that statement that accused touched her cheeks or tried to kiss her. Similarly, she did not disclose in her statement (Ex.PW1/A) that accused forced her to the bed or one boy namely Ashish came upstairs, while singing. It is not in dispute rather admitted by the CA No. 18/13 3 of 4 accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that complainant was their tenant. She went downstairs to turn on water motor or he i.e. accused objected to this, asking her to send her fufa (husband of father's sister) who had not paid arrears of rent. The improvements pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel are not so material which could make testimony of complainant unreliable.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1