Singh at site.
10. The company did not procure the documents pertaining to
occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises. No inquiry in
this ... confirmed in which
accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents
of occupancy / ownership.
11. The company was under obligation to prove
near the premises having the same municipal numbers.
Company has not procured any documents which shows that
CC No: 28/08
Police Station: Darya Ganj ... Darya Ganj
BYPL Vs. Wasim 10
9. The company did not procure the documents
pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises
accused was mentioned in the reports.
9. The company did not procure the documents
pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises ... confirmed
in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the
documents of occupancy / ownership.
10. The company was under obligation to prove
proved by positive evidence.
9. The company did not procure the documents
pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises.
Page ... Guddu in which accused was acquitted as company
failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership.
10. The company was under obligation to prove
Police witnesses
were also not examined.
9. The company did not procure the documents
Page 6
CC No.625/08
BYPL Vs. Shadab
pertaining ... confirmed
in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the
documents of occupancy / ownership.
10. The company was under obligation to prove
present at the time of inspection.
9. The company did not procure the documents
pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises ... confirmed
in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the
documents of occupancy / ownership. So, the assertion of the
witness that accused
that appellant had been residing at his given address and had
procured documents to show his different address in frivolous manner. The
trial court decided
said FIR. He submitted that MLC of Shahnawaz is a
procured document. He submitted that it was not possible for
the petitioners
appellant came
to know that respondent no. 1 had got the documents prepared in his
own name pertaining to the suit property and was negotiating ... dated 14.02.1968, but later on respondent no.
1 after forging the document procured a second lease deed dated
09.12.1969 exclusively in his name in respect
fraudulent
transfer by them of his property in their names by forging
documents. Defendant nos.1 and 2 stated that plaintiff can not
do anything ... defendants in
back date on the basis of forged and fabricated documents
procured by plaintiff by way of fraud. Accordingly, during
JanuaryFebruary
