Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 24 August, 2007

Jitendra Himmat Biraris vs Kiran S/O Gulabrao Patil on 15 April, 2010

11 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners has invited my attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Sayyad ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:02 ::: 12 Tahir Hussain Mainuddin & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2007 (6) ALL M R 14, and contended that as held by the Division Bench of this Court, provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules are mandatory and non compliance thereof shall entail in dismissal of the Reference. This Court, while considering provisions of Rules of 1987, has taken into account judgments arising out of provisions of Representation of the People Act. While considering the difference in scheme between two Acts, this Court has observed in paragraph 8 of the judgment, thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R M Borde - Full Document

Subhas Magadev Guddodagi Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2012

In the judgment reported in 2003 SCC 708 between Akhil ali, Jahangir ali and Sayyad v/s State of Maharashtra Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " as the second accused was placed on the same situation the appellant application Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution would not permit this Court to deny bail to co-accused. This judgment is also on the principle of parity. Hence, I do not find any similarities or parities for applying Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - L N Swamy - Full Document

Prakash Rudrappa Guddodgi Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2012

In the judgment reported in 2003 SCC 708 between Akhil ali, Jahangir ali and Sayyad v/s State of Maharashtra Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " as the second accused was placed on the same situation the appellant application Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution would not permit this Court to deny bail to co-accused. This judgment is also on the principle of parity. Hence, I do not find any similarities or parities for applying Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - L N Swamy - Full Document
1