Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Sumit’s Residency and Legal Status - Sumit is a permanent resident of Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, and has been involved in multiple legal cases, including criminal and matrimonial matters. He is not a fugitive, as charges have been filed against him, and evidence tampering is unlikely ["SHIVAM ALIAS JUDI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"], ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"].
Criminal Cases and Allegations - Sumit has been involved in serious criminal cases, including a murder under Section 302 IPC, with some cases resulting in bail grants. For instance, Sumit was granted bail by a High Court bench on 20 December 2021 ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"]. He has also been implicated in cases involving violence and firing, with statements attributing roles to him in the commission of crimes ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"].
Family and Matrimonial Disputes - Multiple cases pertain to matrimonial disputes involving Sumit, including cases under the Hindu Marriage Act and family court proceedings in Noida and Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. These cases are ongoing, with some being transferred or dismissed ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"], ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"], ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"].
Legal Proceedings in Uttar Pradesh - Sumit has participated in various proceedings in Uttar Pradesh courts, including revenue and property disputes, with some cases related to land and property laws under UP acts. The state’s role in these cases involves enforcement and adjudication of property rights ["RAMAJOR Vs State - Allahabad"], ["Rahul Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"].
State of Uttar Pradesh’s Role - The state is a respondent in multiple criminal and civil cases involving Sumit, including appeals, revisions, and investigations. It has also been involved in legal issues arising from the bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, with some cases related to administrative and legal jurisdiction ["State Of U. P. VS Baleshwar Singh - Supreme Court"], ["Sudha Agrawal VS A. D. J. /Special Judge Sc/St Act - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion - Sumit’s legal profile in Uttar Pradesh is extensive, covering criminal, civil, and family law. The state of Uttar Pradesh actively prosecutes and adjudicates these cases, with courts granting bail in some instances and dismissing or transferring others. Despite allegations, Sumit’s residency and legal standing suggest he is a resident with ongoing legal obligations in UP. The cases reflect typical legal proceedings involving criminal allegations, family disputes, and property issues within the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh courts ["SHIVAM ALIAS JUDI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"], ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"].
References:- ["SHIVAM ALIAS JUDI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"]- ["The Commissioner, Trade Tax VS S/S Madhu Steel - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 271"]- ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"]- ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"]- ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"]- ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"]- ["SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P - Allahabad"]- ["Rahul Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["State Of U. P. VS Baleshwar Singh - Supreme Court"]- ["Sudha Agrawal VS A. D. J. /Special Judge Sc/St Act - Allahabad"]
In the realm of Indian jurisprudence, cases involving the State of Uttar Pradesh often highlight critical issues like jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and statutory interpretation. One such query that frequently arises is: sumit vs. state of Uttar Pradesh. This blog post examines available legal documents, related precedents, and key principles that may apply, providing clarity for those researching this matter. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance.
While direct details on Sumit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh are elusive in core references, insights from associated judgments shed light on common themes in UP litigation. Let's break it down step by step.
A thorough review of key documents reveals no explicit mention of Sumit as a party or the exact case title Sumit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. For instance:
Key observation: These materials underscore procedural rigor but do not directly reference the queried case. As concluded in the analysis, There is no explicit mention of Sumit as a party, case, or legal dispute in the provided references Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. VS D. C. Dhimani & Bros. Ltd. - 1968 0 Supreme(SC) 448M. C. Mehta VS Union of India - 2007 7 Supreme 495.
Expanding to additional sources uncovers several instances where individuals named Sumit appear in UP-related litigation, offering contextual relevance:
These suggest Sumit-named parties often engage in criminal appeals, family law, and transfers in UP courts, potentially linking to the queried case.
Even without exact matches, principles from reviewed documents apply broadly:
UP cases stress proper jurisdiction. In State Of Uttar Pradesh VS Jail Superintendent (Ropar) - 2021 3 Supreme 231, transfers of criminal cases require adherence to procedure: the importance of jurisdiction and proper procedural conduct in criminal or civil cases State Of Uttar Pradesh VS Jail Superintendent (Ropar) - 2021 3 Supreme 231. Courts limit interventions without basis.
PILs have boundaries, as in M. C. Mehta VS Union of India - 2007 7 Supreme 495: The scope of PILs and the limits of the Supreme Court's intervention M. C. Mehta VS Union of India - 2007 7 Supreme 495. Courts avoid interfering in ongoing proceedings lightly.
Tax disputes, like those in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. VS D. C. Dhimani & Bros. Ltd. - 1968 0 Supreme(SC) 448, interpret statutes narrowly: supply of parcel vans to the Union Government and the assessment of whether the respondents were dealers Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. VS D. C. Dhimani & Bros. Ltd. - 1968 0 Supreme(SC) 448.
These principles—jurisdiction State Of Uttar Pradesh VS Jail Superintendent (Ropar) - 2021 3 Supreme 231, PIL limits M. C. Mehta VS Union of India - 2007 7 Supreme 495, and evidence standards—may inform any Sumit vs. State of UP scenario.
The lack of specifics means speculation is unwise. Documents confirm: The provided documents do not contain any specific information regarding the case Sumit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Lok Prahari VS State of U. P. - 2016 6 Supreme 161Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. VS D. C. Dhimani & Bros. Ltd. - 1968 0 Supreme(SC) 448. Researchers should seek case numbers or courts (e.g., Allahabad High Court) for precise details.
Recommendations:- Furnish facts, issues, or procedural history for targeted analysis.- Check platforms like Indian Kanoon or e-Courts for Sumit + State of Uttar Pradesh.- Consider related fields: criminal (IPC 302) SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P, family transfers Sucholita Ghosh vs Sumit Kumar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10563.
This analysis draws from authentic sources, promoting informed legal awareness. For tailored advice, engage a lawyer familiar with Uttar Pradesh courts.
References:1. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. VS D. C. Dhimani & Bros. Ltd. - 1968 0 Supreme(SC) 448 - Taxation disputes.2. M. C. Mehta VS Union of India - 2007 7 Supreme 495 - PIL scope.3. Lok Prahari VS State of U. P. - 2016 6 Supreme 161 - Government bungalows PIL.4. The Commissioner, Trade Tax VS S/S Madhu Steel - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 271 - Inter-State tax.5. State Of Uttar Pradesh VS Jail Superintendent (Ropar) - 2021 3 Supreme 231 - Case transfers.6. Additional: SUMIT SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P, Sucholita Ghosh vs Sumit Kumar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10563, etc.
#SumitVsUP #UPLawCases #IndianJudiciary
He is a permanent resident of District Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 6. ... According to the respondent – State, Sumit, aged about 24 years, the husband of the informant Smt. Renu, was missing since 14.11.2024. A report was registered on 21.11.2024 under Section 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against unknown person. ... Sumit had knowledge....
trade or commence which resulted in the import of the goods into the State of Uttar Pradesh. ... CONDITIONS (1) The sales are made to a registered dealer having his place of business outside Uttar pradesh. (2) The sales relate to goods which are proved to the satisfaction of the appropriate sales tax authority to have been imported into Uttar Pradesh and are exported from Uttar Pradesh without any ... change in form or identity and ....
Vaishno W/o Sumit, Aged About 18 Years, Umrain, Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh-206252, Presently Residing At Sector 14, Kudi Bhagtasani, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan 2. ... Sumit S/o Roky, Aged About 23 Years, Muhlla Bazar, Karhal, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh-205264 Presently Residing At Sector 14, Kudi Bhagtasani, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. ... Tinu Gupta, Umrain, Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh 10. Deeraj Gupta, Umrain, Auraiya, Utta....
The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2022) and Brijesh Kumar @ Ramu Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal ... Sumit Sharma) arising out of Case Crime No.362 of 2012, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Uttar, Respondent :- State of U.P. ... . - 6583 of 2016 Appellant :- Sumit Sharma Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the appellant/applicant- #HL_STAR....
GW- 157/2023, titled as Sumit Kumar Vs Sucholita Ghosh, pending before the Principal Judge Family Court at Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. ... 1398/2022, titled as Sumit Kumar Vs Sucholita Ghosh, pending before the Principal Judge Family Court at Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (iii) Respondent/Husband has filed a Case No. ... (iv) Respondent/Husband has filed a Case Complaint No. 316/2024, titled as Sumit Kumar Vs Sucholita Ghosh, pending before the Judicial Ma....
Sumit Bisht v. Smt. Jyoti filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. 2. ... The Registry is directed to immediately transmit a copy of this order to Family Court, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. .......................J. ... Sumit Bisht v. Smt. ... Jyoti filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Noida, Uttar#HL_E....
(C) No. 350/2013 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUMIT KUMAR AND ORS. ... PRADESH …Petitioner Versus SUMIT KUMAR AND ORS. ... IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (C) NO.3523 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.350 OF 2013 STATE OF UTTAR
Pratap Singh was allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. ... The State of Uttar Pradesh neither challenged the said order nor compiled with the same. ... This is an unfortunate litigation which arises out of bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh into the State of Uttaranchal, which was subsequently renamed as Uttarakhand, and the State of Uttar Pradesh, by ....
Ravindra Baliyan 6 OA No. 2481/2022 Item No.24 R/o Village+Post Kakra District Muzaffar Nagar, State Uttar Pradesh AWO 1373077 38 ... – 400 Jhadina Jhnina, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh - 245205 AWO 1596969 83. ... Poonam (Aged about 28years) W/o Pradeep Singh R/o Ganjoli, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh- 281122 AWO 1594059 24. ... Mohan Syham (Aged about 31 years) S/o Chhiddi Singh R/o Parkham Mathura, Parkhamgujar, Uttar #H....
No.1529/2022) JITENDRA KUMAR URF TURRI Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s) O R D E R at Allahabad) JITENDRA KUMAR URF TURRI Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ... third unknown person firing upon the injured with the first firing by Sumit and the second one by the petition....
For ready reference, we may quote paragraph 34 of the judgment in the matter of Pawan Kumar (supra), as under : 34. In support of his submissions, Mr. Thakare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner placed heavy reliance on following judgment: Pawan Kumar Vs. State of H.P., Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 2017. & Asharfi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 1 SCC 742. Thus, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner prayed for allowing the Petition.
Thus, various counts that have been argued herein point out that the PMLA suffers from manifest arbitrariness in light of Shayara Bano vs. Provisions such as Sections 21, 22, 23 and 45 of the PMLA reverse the burden and curtail the jurisdiction of the trial Court arbitrarily in violation of the findings of this Court79[Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. Union of India & Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 1 (paras 87, 101)] and Joseph Shine vs. Union of India [(2019) 3 SCC 39 (paras 61, 103, 105)]. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2021) 5 SCC 435].
In Bina Devi vs. State of U.P. (2010) 69 ACC 19, the Allahabad High Court on an interpretation of S.125(2) of the Cr.P.C. held that when maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of application, the Court must record reasons. If the order is silent, it will be effective from the date of the order, for which reasons need not be recorded. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 69 ACC 19] The Court held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is prima facie clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114
It is difficult to fathom why the High Court went into the comparative conduct and integrity of the petitioner and Respondent No. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 178 )
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
