Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 975 (0.03 seconds)
Documents citing Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr on 16 January, 2015

Chanchal Joshi vs . Rattan Lal Kaushik And Ors on 18 December, 2018

In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774 and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously and normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law and the finding of the court is not to be interfered unless the same is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
Delhi District Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashwani Kumar vs The Bhagat Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd on 1 August, 2025

Phalke [Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19]. This Court held that the High Court, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material; the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. The following has been laid down in para 14: (SCC p. 135) "14. ... Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hari Govind Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 January, 2020

In view of the above discussion and opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattaray Gulabrao Phalke and others (supra) when the impugned order is not found to have been passed on account of non consideration of any relevant material or palpable misreading of record. The impugned order is also not found perverse or the view taken by the Judicial Magistrate is wholly unreasonable, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the impugned order which has been passed by the court concerned considering the evidence before it taking a view that Rs.5,00,000/- were demanded by the revisionists in dowry and passed the impugned order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - A Zamin - Full Document

Subhash Chander vs . The State on 13 November, 2018

In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774 and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously and normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law and the finding of the court is not to be interfered unless the same is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Govindankutty vs Krishnankutty Nair on 14 February, 2025

12.​ As far as the present case is concerned, none of the parameters highlighted in the case laws referred above warranting interference of this Court in revision, have been brought out by the petitioner. Therefore, it has to be held that the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur, in Crl.A.No.206/2017 is not liable to be interfered with in this revision.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Singh vs . The State on 10 October, 2018

In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774 and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously and normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law and the finding of the court is not to be interfered unless the same is shown to be CR No:359/2017 Page 20 of 21 D.O.J.10.10.2018 Vijay Singh Vs. The State CR No:359/2017 perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.K.Imthias vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2025

The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an 2025:KER:84820 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2976 of 2006 -9- appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction." ​ 9.​ In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is not possible for this Court to unsettle the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to the commission of the offence by the petitioner. Needless to say the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A IPC, is perfectly in order.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

-: 1 :- Satish Kumar vs . P. Anand Rao on 29 November, 2018

In Chandra Babu alias Moses v. State and others (2015) 8 SCC 774 and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others (2015) 3 SCC 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously and normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law and the finding of the court is not to be interfered unless the same is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next