Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 300 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing G. J. Raja vs Tejraj Surana on 30 July, 2019

Rashmi Khandelwal D/O Shri Pramod ... vs Ganesh Kumar S/O Shri Baldev Singh B/C ... on 16 January, 2025

"20. It must be stated that prior to the insertion of Section 143A in the Act there was no provision on the statute book whereunder even before the 4 (1997) 7 SCC 131 Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2019 @ SLP(Crl.)No.3342 of 2019 G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana pronouncement of the guilt of an accused, or even before his conviction for the offence in question, he could be made to pay or deposit interim compensation. The imposition and consequential recovery of fine or compensation either through the modality of Section 421 of the Code or Section 357 of the code could also arise only after the person was found guilty of an offence. That was the status of law which was sought to be changed by the introduction of Section 143A in the Act. It now imposes a liability that even before the pronouncement of his guilt or order of conviction, the accused may, with the aid of State machinery for recovery of the money as arrears of land revenue, be forced to pay interim compensation. The person would, therefore, be subjected to a new disability or obligation.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A K Dhand - Full Document

Sh Adarsh Chaudhary vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 January, 2025

"G.J. Raja Vs. Tej Raj Surana" {7 (2019) SLT 257} was not appreciated and considered while dismissing the said application. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the judgment as mentioned in the impugned order. Impugned order is against the well settled law and judicial pronouncements on the point involved in the present matter. Accused/respondent No.2 has failed to put forth the prima-facie defence in his favour and no document was produced/shown by the accused/respondent No.2 in his favour till date before the Ld. Trial Court. No plausible defence was shown/given by the accused/respondent No.2 in this case. Impugned order is perverse in nature and against the judicial record as well as on the law.
Delhi District Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra Singh Sharma S/O Late Shri ... vs Ganesh Kumar S/O Shri Baldev Singh B/C ... on 16 January, 2025

"20. It must be stated that prior to the insertion of Section 143A in the Act there was no provision on the statute book whereunder even before the 4 (1997) 7 SCC 131 Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2019 @ SLP(Crl.)No.3342 of 2019 G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana pronouncement of the guilt of an accused, or even before his conviction for the offence in question, he could be made to pay or deposit interim compensation. The imposition and consequential recovery of fine or compensation either through the modality of Section 421 of the Code or Section 357 of the code could also arise only after the person was found guilty of an offence. That was the status of law which was sought to be changed by the introduction of Section 143A in the Act. It now imposes a liability that even before the pronouncement of his guilt or order of conviction, the accused may, with the aid of State machinery for recovery of the money as arrears of land revenue, be forced to pay interim compensation. The person would, therefore, be subjected to a new disability or obligation.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A K Dhand - Full Document

Sh. Mahender Kumar Pathak vs Tejraj Surana on 18 December, 2021

)No.3342 of 2019 G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana Sub-Section (5) of Section 143A of the Act. However, as a matter of fact, no such provision akin to sub-section (5) of Section 143A was required as Sections 421 and 357 of the Code, which apply postconviction, are adequate to take care of such requirements. In that sense said Section 148 depends upon the existing machinery and principles already in existence and does not create any fresh disability of the nature similar to that created by Section 143A of the ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:27:32 :::CIS 5 Act. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Surinder .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

M/S Baynee Industries And Another vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 18 February, 2025

21. Though arising in somewhat different context, proviso to Section 142(b) which was inserted in the Act by Amendment Act 55 of 2002, under which 11 cognizance could now be taken even in respect of a complaint filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Act, was held to Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2019 @ SLP(Crl.)No.3342 of 2019 G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana be prospective by this Court in Anil Kumar Goel v. Kishan Chand Kaura5. It was observed:-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next