Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)

Ram Chandra Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 18 April, 1961

22. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in " Ram Chandra Vs. State of Bihar, 1967 CriLJ 409" . In that case a wire had actually been inserted CS No. 80/11 M/s Bhagwan & Sons Vs. NDPL Page No. 12 of 17 which had the effect of preventing the rotation of a disc despite that it was held that in addition to the above evidence, it was important to demonstrate that " the appellant would have knowingly done something to the meter which would have escaped detection of a meter reader and facilitated the abstraction of electricity." The Court set aside the conviction in that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 49 - R Dayal - Full Document

Tarlok Singh vs Vijay Kumar Sabharwal on 25 March, 1996

16. It is also argued by the counsel for the defendant relying upon Tarlok Singh Vs. Vinay Kumar Sabharwal (1996) 8 SCC 367, that the relief for declaration cannot be claimed in the present suit as the same was added by way of amendment after the expiry of the limitation period of three years and the said relief, being time barred, cannot be granted. Here, it is seen that the said relief of declaration is merely for declaring the impugned inspection report and the demand as null and void. There are no new facts averred for the said relief and the said relief flows directly from the same set of facts along with the relief of injunction and therefore cannot be said to be a new relief stricto sensu as substantive relief and the plaintiff cannot be denied of the same merely on the basis that it was added by way of amendment after the expiry of the period of limitation of three years. The said relief even did existed as on the date of filing of the present suit. Hence, this contention of the defendant does not hold any ground.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 57 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1