Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 365 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Vijay Dhanuka Etc vs Najima Mamtaj Etc on 27 March, 2014

Mr. P. B. Vinod Kumar vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 30 August, 2023

28. The matter is remitted to the Court of the learned 13th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, for considering the matter a fresh as per the relevant provision of law, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court in the judgment [Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings (Supra)] referred to in this order/judgment without being influenced by the order of this Court and also being guided by the judgment in S.S. Binu vs. State of West Bengal (Supra) and Vijay Dhanuka and Ors. vs Najima Mamtaj and Ors. (Supra).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pancham International Limited And ... vs Shevam S/O Jugalkishor Kothari And 2 ... on 20 August, 2025

18. Thus, by referring the decisions in the case of Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another and Vijay Dhanuka and others Vs. Najim Mamtaj and others relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Expeditious trial of cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act which is a Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 decided on 16.04.2021 held that Section 202 (2) of the Code is inapplicable to complaints under Section 138 in respect of examination of witnesses on oath. In view of that observations of wp.425.2024.Judgment.odt (18) the Hon'ble Apex Court herein the present case the ground raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that no inquiry was held which is mandate of Section 202 is not sustainable.
Bombay High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Jugal Kishore Khetawat & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 June, 2023

22. The matter is remitted to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore, for considering the matter a fresh as per the relevant provision of law, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court in the judgment [Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings (Supra)] referred to in this order/judgment without being influenced by the order of this Court and also being guided by the judgment in S.S. Binu vs. State of West Bengal (Supra) and Vijay Dhanuka and Ors. vs Najima Mamtaj and Ors. (Supra).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Radha @ Radha Ramalingam vs / on 6 May, 2024

“10. Section 202 of the Code confers jurisdiction on the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry for the purpose of deciding whether sufficient grounds justifying the issue of process are made out. The amendment to Section 202 of the Code with effect from 23-6-2006, vide Act 25 of 2005, made it mandatory for the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry before issue of process, in a case where the accused resides beyond the area of jurisdiction of the court. (See :Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj [Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 479] , Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar [Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, (2017) 3 SCC 528 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 192] and Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Medmeme vs M/S.Ihorse Bpo Solutions Pvt Ltd on 11 November, 2014

19(6)It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying upon the unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.678-681 of 2014 @ SLP (Crl).5090-5093 of 2013, dated 27.03.2014, in the case of Vijay Dhanuka Vs. Najima Mamtaj, that for an enquiry under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. examination of the complainant alone is necessary, whereas if an enquiry is conducted under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., witnesses have to be examined. But, in the instant case, no witness was examined.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next