Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Gangaram Kandaram vs Sunder Chikha Amin And Others on 3 March, 2000

S.Gugan vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 6 September, 2024

48. According to Mr Visen, the learned counsel for the respondent State, the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gangaram Kandaram case [Gangaram Kandaram v. Sunder Chikha Amin, 2000 SCC OnLine AP 119 : (2000) 2 An LT 448] is absolutely defensible in law and, therefore, the appeal being maintainable, the order impugned in the present appeal does not warrant any interference.
Madras High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Pandey vs Vijay Aggarwal & Anr on 13 March, 2019

29. Finally, in Para 58 after giving detailed analysis, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the views expressed by the High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi have correctly laid down the law whereas the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gangaram Kandaram (supra) is not correct and answered the question in Paras 61 and 62 in the following manner:
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 4 - A J Bhambani - Full Document

Smti Rumi Kalita vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 6 October, 2020

The Full Bench posed the following question: (Gangaram case [Gangaram Kandaram v. Sunder Chikha Amin, 2000 SCC OnLine AP 119 : (2000) 2 An LT 448] , SCC OnLine AP para 2) "2. ... '... (ii) Whether appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court lies against the judgment in such a case. In other words, whether a proceeding for quashing of investigation in a criminal case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a civil proceeding and the judgment as above is a judgment in a civil proceeding in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the Court for the purposes of appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.'"
Gauhati High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M Choudhury - Full Document

V.Kumar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 21 September, 2021

54. After so stating, the Full Bench referred to the Constitution Bench decision in CIT v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, 11 of 37 (1966) 1 SCR 190 and distinguished the Full Bench decision of the Andhra High Court in Gangaram Kandaram v. Sunder Chikha Amin, 2000 SCC OnLine AP 119 and noted the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Sanjeev Rajendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 1 GLR 206] and came to hold as follows : C.S. Agarwal v. State, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3136 “32. The test, thus, is whether criminal proceedings are pending or not and the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred concerning those criminal proceedings which could result in conviction and order of sentence.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Korada Rajababu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 April, 2022

Hon‟ble Justice Sikri while referring to Letters Patent and after considering various judgments, including Full Bench judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gangaram Kandaram vs. Sunder Chhka Amin and others12, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj13 and Sanjeev Rajendrabhai Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat14 held that the Intra Court Appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge while exercising criminal jurisdiction is not maintainable before the Division Bench of the same High Court.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Lakshmi Padma Priya Anjana Devi Thallam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 April, 2022

Hon'ble Justice Sikri while referring to Letters Patent and after considering various judgments, including Full Bench judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gangaram Kandaram vs. Sunder Chhka Amin and others5, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj6 and Sanjeev Rajendrabhai Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat7 held that the Intra-Court Appeal against the order passed by the learned single 4 259 (2019) DLT 113 5 2000 (2) ALT 448 6 (1963) 1 S.C.R. 1 7 1999 Cr.L.J 3388 CJ & MSM,J WA_145_2022 8 Judge, while exercising criminal jurisdiction is not maintainable before the Division Bench of the same High Court.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Kamal Chandra @ Chanda vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 December, 2022

56. As we find from the decisions of the aforesaid three High Courts, it is evident that there is no disagreement or conflict on the principle that if an appeal is barred under Clause 10 or Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as the case may be, no appeal will lie. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, however, has held that when the power is exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of a criminal proceeding, there is no exercise of criminal jurisdiction. It has distinguished the proceeding for quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC and, in that context, has opined that from such an order, no appeal would lie. On the contrary, the High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi, on the basis of the law laid down by this Court in Ishwarlal Bhagwandas : (AIR 1965 SC 1818), have laid emphasis on the seed of initiation of criminal proceeding, the consequence of a criminal proceeding and also the nature of relief sought before the Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution. The conception of "criminal jurisdiction" as used in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not to be construed in the narrow sense. It encompasses in its gamut the inception and the consequence. It is the field in respect of which the jurisdiction is exercised, is relevant. The contention that solely because a writ petition is filed to quash an investigation, it would have room for intra-court appeal and if a petition is filed under inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, there would be no space for an intra-court appeal, would create an anomalous, unacceptable and inconceivable situation. The provision contained in the Letters Patent does not allow or permit such an interpretation. When we are required to consider a bar 12 or non-permissibility, we have to appreciate the same in true letter and spirit. It confers jurisdiction as regards the subject of controversy or nature of proceeding and that subject is exercise of jurisdiction in criminal matters. It has nothing to do whether the order has been passed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Talukdar - Full Document

D.Kumar vs Raichand Daga on 3 August, 2020

54. After so stating, the Full Bench referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Ishwarlal Bhagwandas [CIT v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, http://www.judis.nic.in 11 of 37 W.A.SR.44351 of 2020 (1966) 1 SCR 190 : AIR 1965 SC 1818] and distinguished the Full Bench decision of the Andhra High Court in Gangaram Kandaram [Gangaram Kandaram v. Sunder Chikha Amin, 2000 SCC OnLine AP 119 : (2000) 2 An LT 448] and noted the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Sanjeev Rajendrabhai Bhatt [Sanjeev Rajendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 1 Guj LR 206] and came to hold as follows: (C.S. Agarwal case [C.S. Agarwal v. State, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3136 : (2011) 125 DRJ 241] , SCC OnLine Del paras 32-33) “32. The test, thus, is whether criminal proceedings are pending or not and the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred concerning those criminal proceedings which could result in conviction and order of sentence.
Madras High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next