Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
B S Sidhu vs M/O Home Affairs on 21 February, 2019 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Dinanath Shataram Karekar & Ors on 30 July, 1998

In support of his contention, learned counsel for applicant relied upon (i) Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar, AIR 1998 SC 272, (ii) R.D.Meena Vs. F.C.I, 2017 (2) MPLJ 359 (iii) Brij Mohan Vs. State of U.P, 2017 (2) AWC 1110 (iv) Union of India Vs. Sabu Jseph 2016 (332) ELT 396 (v) State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika, 1966 AIR (SC) 1313 and (vi) Dulu Devi Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2016 SC 2152. In the said citations, the principle laid down is regarding as to when the delivery of the charge-sheet is complete upon the charged officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 141 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Nu??^?O ? &?&?~ T7 ?(?_??S~,`N D? ???? ... vs ?P^????>?>^?E??? ??I ?> A?X ????M60] ? ... on 25 June, 2008

In support of his contention, learned counsel for applicant relied upon (i) Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar, AIR 1998 SC 272, (ii) R.D.Meena Vs. F.C.I, 2017 (2) MPLJ 359 (iii) Brij Mohan Vs. State of U.P, 2017 (2) AWC 1110 (iv) Union of India Vs. Sabu Jseph 2016 (332) ELT 396 (v) State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika, 1966 AIR (SC) 1313 and (vi) Dulu Devi Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2016 SC 2152. In the said citations, the principle laid down is regarding as to when the delivery of the charge-sheet is complete upon the charged officer.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 222 - J R Vora - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Amar Singh Harika on 6 January, 1966

In support of his contention, learned counsel for applicant relied upon (i) Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar, AIR 1998 SC 272, (ii) R.D.Meena Vs. F.C.I, 2017 (2) MPLJ 359 (iii) Brij Mohan Vs. State of U.P, 2017 (2) AWC 1110 (iv) Union of India Vs. Sabu Jseph 2016 (332) ELT 396 (v) State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika, 1966 AIR (SC) 1313 and (vi) Dulu Devi Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2016 SC 2152. In the said citations, the principle laid down is regarding as to when the delivery of the charge-sheet is complete upon the charged officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 221 - Full Document

Dulu Devi vs State Of Assam And Ors on 9 October, 2015

In support of his contention, learned counsel for applicant relied upon (i) Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar, AIR 1998 SC 272, (ii) R.D.Meena Vs. F.C.I, 2017 (2) MPLJ 359 (iii) Brij Mohan Vs. State of U.P, 2017 (2) AWC 1110 (iv) Union of India Vs. Sabu Jseph 2016 (332) ELT 396 (v) State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika, 1966 AIR (SC) 1313 and (vi) Dulu Devi Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2016 SC 2152. In the said citations, the principle laid down is regarding as to when the delivery of the charge-sheet is complete upon the charged officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 17 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh And Another on 5 April, 1990

Learned counsel for the applicant on the question of inordinate delay in alleged issuance of chargesheet relied upon the (1) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh, AIR 1990 SC 11308, (2) State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, 1995 (2) 5 SCC 570 (3) M. Balakrishnan Vs. Corporation of Madurai, 1995 2 CTC 589 (4) P. Anand G. Vs. Principal Commissioner, 2007 5 CTC 723 and Kootha Vs. Commissioner, 2009 (1) MadLJ 761 which lay down that inordinate delay requires the chargesheet to be quashed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 761 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

M. Balakrishnan And 7 Ors. vs The Corporation Of Madurai And Anr. on 7 August, 1995

Learned counsel for the applicant on the question of inordinate delay in alleged issuance of chargesheet relied upon the (1) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh, AIR 1990 SC 11308, (2) State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, 1995 (2) 5 SCC 570 (3) M. Balakrishnan Vs. Corporation of Madurai, 1995 2 CTC 589 (4) P. Anand G. Vs. Principal Commissioner, 2007 5 CTC 723 and Kootha Vs. Commissioner, 2009 (1) MadLJ 761 which lay down that inordinate delay requires the chargesheet to be quashed.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Kootha Pillai vs The Commissioner on 5 November, 2008

Learned counsel for the applicant on the question of inordinate delay in alleged issuance of chargesheet relied upon the (1) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh, AIR 1990 SC 11308, (2) State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, 1995 (2) 5 SCC 570 (3) M. Balakrishnan Vs. Corporation of Madurai, 1995 2 CTC 589 (4) P. Anand G. Vs. Principal Commissioner, 2007 5 CTC 723 and Kootha Vs. Commissioner, 2009 (1) MadLJ 761 which lay down that inordinate delay requires the chargesheet to be quashed.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane on 19 March, 1975

16. It is a settled law that in cases like the instant OA when the question of fact is in dispute, a fact is said to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. N.G.Dastane v. Mrs. S.Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 that "The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 555 - Full Document

R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & ... on 8 October, 2003

And in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesarawami, 2003 (4) CCC 299 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that "A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists." And it was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "Being a civil case, the plaintiff cannot be expected to proof his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant and if the defendant does not succeed in shifting 8 back the onus, the plaintiff's burden of proof can safely be deemed to have been discharged."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 830 - Full Document
1   2 Next