Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Vijay Kumar And Others vs Smt. Kalpana on 6 May, 2011 cites

Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004

The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as mentioned above, are the judgments rendered by various High Courts. The judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the cases of Manish Ratan (supra) or Y. Abraham Ajith (supra) have not been referred to in either of these judgments. In fact, the judgments were rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court at the later point of time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 438 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Sudesh Kumar Gill Son Of Shri Om Parkash ... vs State Of Haryana Through Financial ... on 1 September, 2010

Reliance has been placed on various judgments of this Court, as well as, other High Courts, titled as V.P. Singh vs. State of Haryana 1996(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 261, Sita Ram vs. State of Haryana 1997(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 602, Surinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 115, Jiwni vs. State of Haryana 1996(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 710, Charanjit Singh vs. State of Haryana 1996(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 233, Rajinder Singh vs. Arinder Kaur 1995(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 168, Puran singh vs. Surjit Kaur 1995(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 121, Sandeep Aggarwal vs. Sudesh Gupta 1997(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322, Brij Lal vs. State of Haryana 1997(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 319, Jagidsh Kumar vs. State of Crl. Misc. No.M-15064 of 2009 3 Haryana 1998(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 367, Ramesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan 1998(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 46, Bimlesh Kumar Saraf vs. Smt. Chetna Saraf 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 859 and Vishal Maheshwari vs. State of Haryana 2006(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 589. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. In order to adjudicate upon the issue of territorial jurisdiction, it would be necessary to note the facts and the place, where the offence was committed. The petitioner No.1 had initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 on 21.12.2007 at Etawah. The demand for dowry of the Istri Dhan is alleged to have been made at Etawah. After the marriage, the complainant resided at Etawah. It is only at Etawah that alleged demand of more dowry was made. The Panchayat went to Etawah and it was there that they saw the accused wearing her ornaments which were the Istri Dhan. In the entire complaint, the only incident that has taken place at Mansa, as alleged, is that the Istri Dhan was delivered to the accused. In the same paragraph, it is mentioned that the same was required to be delivered to the girl after reaching Etawah. The other allegations with respect to the harassment and cruelty, as per Section 498-A, are stated to be at Etawah. The misappropriation and demand of dowry is also stated to be at Etawah.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 55 - K Kannan - Full Document

R S R T C vs Veer Singh & Anr on 27 September, 2008

Reliance has been placed on various judgments of this Court, as well as, other High Courts, titled as V.P. Singh vs. State of Haryana 1996(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 261, Sita Ram vs. State of Haryana 1997(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 602, Surinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 115, Jiwni vs. State of Haryana 1996(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 710, Charanjit Singh vs. State of Haryana 1996(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 233, Rajinder Singh vs. Arinder Kaur 1995(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 168, Puran singh vs. Surjit Kaur 1995(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 121, Sandeep Aggarwal vs. Sudesh Gupta 1997(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322, Brij Lal vs. State of Haryana 1997(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 319, Jagidsh Kumar vs. State of Crl. Misc. No.M-15064 of 2009 3 Haryana 1998(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 367, Ramesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan 1998(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 46, Bimlesh Kumar Saraf vs. Smt. Chetna Saraf 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 859 and Vishal Maheshwari vs. State of Haryana 2006(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 589. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. In order to adjudicate upon the issue of territorial jurisdiction, it would be necessary to note the facts and the place, where the offence was committed. The petitioner No.1 had initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 on 21.12.2007 at Etawah. The demand for dowry of the Istri Dhan is alleged to have been made at Etawah. After the marriage, the complainant resided at Etawah. It is only at Etawah that alleged demand of more dowry was made. The Panchayat went to Etawah and it was there that they saw the accused wearing her ornaments which were the Istri Dhan. In the entire complaint, the only incident that has taken place at Mansa, as alleged, is that the Istri Dhan was delivered to the accused. In the same paragraph, it is mentioned that the same was required to be delivered to the girl after reaching Etawah. The other allegations with respect to the harassment and cruelty, as per Section 498-A, are stated to be at Etawah. The misappropriation and demand of dowry is also stated to be at Etawah.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - P C Tatia - Full Document
1   2 Next