Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1503 (1.87 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka vs Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy And Anr on 27 January, 1981

M/S. Lan Eseda Industries Ltd vs Shree Hari Rice And Agro Ltd Thr. ... on 16 August, 2018

19. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 contended that the complaint could survive at least in respect of offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC even if the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. applied to other offences mentioned in the complaint. But, in view of the aforesaid position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court , the said contention cannot be accepted.
Bombay High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 2 - M Pitale - Full Document

Konki Rajamani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 April, 2026

"48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , this Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy, In re [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237] ) and approved its ratio as follows : (Hemareddy case [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8) "7.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kollu Raveendra, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 October, 2025

"48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , this Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy, In re [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237] ) and approved its ratio as follows : (Hemareddy case [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8) "7.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Bin Hussain And 3 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 February, 2021

The second judgment relied upon by Shri Naqvi in the case of State of Karnataka VS. Hemareddy and another (Supra) dealt with a fabricated sale deed which was not put in evidence at any stage of suit and in that context it was held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) was not attracted. Thus, the judgment cited is distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document

Motamarri Venkata Baba Prasad @ ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 February, 2026

"48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , this Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy, In re [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237] ) and approved its ratio as follows : (Hemareddy case [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8) 10 (2020) 20 SCC 1 11 "7.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kollu Raveendra vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 October, 2025

"48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , this Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy, In re [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237] ) and approved its ratio as follows : (Hemareddy case [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8) "7.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kollu Ravindra vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 October, 2025

"48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , this Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy, In re [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237] ) and approved its ratio as follows : (Hemareddy case [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8) "7.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chilaka Srikanth vs K Arogyaraju on 23 January, 2026

1968 SCC OnLine SC 253 10 (2020) 20 SCC 1 13 "48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , this Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy, In re [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237] ) and approved its ratio as follows : (Hemareddy case [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8) "7.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gorripati Gopichand vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 April, 2026

"48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , this Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy, In re [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237] ) and approved its ratio as follows : (Hemareddy case [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8) "7.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Mangalamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2024

"48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , this Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy, In re [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237] ) and approved its ratio as follows : (Hemareddy case [State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8) "7.
Karnataka High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next