Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.87 seconds)
Sh. Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal on 29 March, 2011 cites

Dr. Vimla vs Delhi Administration on 29 November, 1962

11 Ld counsel for petitioner Ajit Mittal has relied upon authorities reported as Jibrial Diwan vs State of Maharastra reported in 1997 (4) RCR ( Criminal) 566; Mohd Ibrahim and others vs State of Bihar and Anr. 2009(4) JCC 2753; Dhanpat Rai Jain vs. The State 2000 I AD ( Delhi) 445; Dr. Vimla vs. The Delhi Administration 1963 (2) Cri.L.J. 434; Dr. S. Dutt vs. State of UP AIR 1966 SC 523; Hira Lal and others vs State of UP and others 2009 (2) JCC 1346 to press his contention that since accused Ajit Mittal had not forged any document, he could not have been charged under section 471 IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 193 - Full Document

Dr. S. Dutt vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 August, 1965

11 Ld counsel for petitioner Ajit Mittal has relied upon authorities reported as Jibrial Diwan vs State of Maharastra reported in 1997 (4) RCR ( Criminal) 566; Mohd Ibrahim and others vs State of Bihar and Anr. 2009(4) JCC 2753; Dhanpat Rai Jain vs. The State 2000 I AD ( Delhi) 445; Dr. Vimla vs. The Delhi Administration 1963 (2) Cri.L.J. 434; Dr. S. Dutt vs. State of UP AIR 1966 SC 523; Hira Lal and others vs State of UP and others 2009 (2) JCC 1346 to press his contention that since accused Ajit Mittal had not forged any document, he could not have been charged under section 471 IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 37 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Hira Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 8 April, 2009

11 Ld counsel for petitioner Ajit Mittal has relied upon authorities reported as Jibrial Diwan vs State of Maharastra reported in 1997 (4) RCR ( Criminal) 566; Mohd Ibrahim and others vs State of Bihar and Anr. 2009(4) JCC 2753; Dhanpat Rai Jain vs. The State 2000 I AD ( Delhi) 445; Dr. Vimla vs. The Delhi Administration 1963 (2) Cri.L.J. 434; Dr. S. Dutt vs. State of UP AIR 1966 SC 523; Hira Lal and others vs State of UP and others 2009 (2) JCC 1346 to press his contention that since accused Ajit Mittal had not forged any document, he could not have been charged under section 471 IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 36 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Md.Ibrahim & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 4 September, 2009

16 From perusal of record and law laid down Soma Chakravarty Versus State through CBI ( supra), Smaty Machra and another Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ( supra) and Subhadra Versus State( supra), I am of the considered opinion that accused Ajit Mittal has been rightly charges for offence under section 417/471 IPC and he was rightly discharged under section CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 9 of 10 420/467/468 IPC. I find no, illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order and charge framed. Same are accordingly upheld. Resultantly, present revision petitions are dismissed being without merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1195 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next