Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 132 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing K. Jagadish vs Udaya Kumar G.S. on 10 January, 2020

Prastal Veera Potluri Pvp vs The State Of Ts on 20 October, 2020

26. Whereas, Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel, placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.6, wherein after referring to its earlier judgments including the principle laid down in Bhajan Lal3, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [AIR 1999 SC 1216], Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State Of West Bengal [ (2002) 1 SCC 555] and R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [2008 (14) SCALE 85], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and rarely with great caution. 6 . 2020 SCC Online SC 318 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 15 He would further submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
Telangana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Prasad Veera Potluri vs Vikram Kailas And Another on 20 October, 2020

26. Whereas, Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel, placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.6, wherein after referring to its earlier judgments including the principle laid down in Bhajan Lal3, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [AIR 1999 SC 1216], Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State Of West Bengal [ (2002) 1 SCC 555] and R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [2008 (14) SCALE 85], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and rarely with great caution. 6 . 2020 SCC Online SC 318 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 15 He would further submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
Telangana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Prasad Veera Potluri Pvp vs The State Of Telangana on 20 October, 2020

26. Whereas, Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel, placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.6, wherein after referring to its earlier judgments including the principle laid down in Bhajan Lal3, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [AIR 1999 SC 1216], Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State Of West Bengal [ (2002) 1 SCC 555] and R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [2008 (14) SCALE 85], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and rarely with great caution. 6 . 2020 SCC Online SC 318 KL,J Crl.P. No.2745 of 2020 & batch 15 He would further submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
Telangana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

M/S Sabre Travel Technologies Private ... vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2021

17. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, in support of her contention, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 318 and brought to the notice of this Court para Nos.9 to 14, wherein the Apex Court has held that it is thus well settled in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he has not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Vinod And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 February, 2021

20. Having heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State, this Court finds that the issue as to whether criminal proceedings cannot continue on account of pendency of civil dispute is no longer res intigra in view of Kamla Devi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, 2002 (1) SCC 555, A.yyasamy Vs. A.A. Paramniwaswami & Ors., 2016 (10) SCC 495, Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, Devendra and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2009 (7) SCC 495, Gangadhar Kalita Vs. State of Assam and Others, 2015 (9) SCC 647, Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2009 (4) SCC 439, K Jagadish Vs. Udaya Kumar G.S. and Another, 2020 SCC Online SC 318.
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R Misra - Full Document

Mr. Srikanth Reddy Gaddam, 2 Others, vs Sojitz Corporation, Another, on 24 June, 2021

19. The proposition of law laid down in K. JAGDISH's case (9 supra) is that in certain case same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil law as well as in criminal proceedings and by availing civil remedy, the appellant is not precluded from setting in motion proceedings under the criminal law. However, the same is not the issue involved in the instant case.
Telangana High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - B V Reddy - Full Document

M/S. Madhavi Vuppalapati 3 Others vs Sojitz Corporation The State Of A.P. on 24 June, 2021

19. The proposition of law laid down in K. JAGDISH's case (9 supra) is that in certain case same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil law as well as in criminal proceedings and by availing civil remedy, the appellant is not precluded from setting in motion proceedings under the criminal law. However, the same is not the issue involved in the instant case.
Telangana High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - B V Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next