Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 331 (2.02 seconds)
Documents citing Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004

Anil Kumar Goel And Ors vs Devi Dayal Garg on 19 October, 2023

Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the NI Act suo moto writ petition (Crl. No. 2/2020) decided on April 16, 2021 has also categorically ruled that the judgements of the court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium (supra) had interpreted law correctly and reiterated that there is no inherent power of the trial courts to review or recall or to reviews of summons.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neeraj Piplani vs State on 19 February, 2024

No. 2/2020) decided on April 16, 2021 has also categorically ruled that the judgements of the court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium (supra) had interpreted law correctly and reiterated that there is no inherent power of the trial courts to review or recall or to reviews the order of summoning in the accused. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Court on its own motion vs. State judgment delivered on 20.04.2022 has categorically ruled that 'the Court of a Magistrate do not have the power to discharge the accused upon his appearance in the court in a summoned trial case based upon complaint in general and particularly in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act, once cognizance has already been taken and process under Section 204 issued.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Chand vs Sunita Kaul on 2 April, 2024

Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the NI Act suo moto writ petition (Crl. No. 2/2020) decided on April 16, 2021 has also categorically ruled that the judgments of the court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium (supra) had interpreted law correctly and reiterated that there is no inherent power of the trial courts in the present court to review or recall or to reviews of summons.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Richmondd Global School vs State on 7 December, 2023

No. 2/2020) decided on April 16, 2021 has also categorically ruled that the judgements of the court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium (supra) had interpreted law correctly and reiterated that there is no inherent power of the trial courts to review or CR No. 496/2023 Richmondd Global School Vs. State and Anr Page No 11 of 13 recall or to reviews of summons. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Court on its own motion vs. State judgment delivered on 20.04.2022 has categorically ruled that 'the Court of a Magistrate do not have the power to discharge the accused upon his appearance in the court in a summoned trial case based upon complaint in general and particularly in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act, once cognizance has already been taken and process under Section 204 issued.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kumar Goel And Ors vs Devi Dayal Garg on 19 October, 2023

Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the NI Act suo moto writ petition (Crl. No. 2/2020) decided on April 16, 2021 has also categorically ruled that the judgements of the court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium (supra) had interpreted law correctly and reiterated that there is no inherent power of the trial courts to review or recall or to reviews of summons.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kumar Goel And Ors vs Devi Dayal Garg on 19 October, 2023

Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the NI Act suo moto writ petition (Crl. No. 2/2020) decided on April 16, 2021 has also categorically ruled that the judgements of the court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium (supra) had interpreted law correctly and reiterated that there is no inherent power of the trial courts to review or recall or to reviews of summons.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kumar Goel And Ors vs Devi Dayal Garg on 19 October, 2023

Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the NI Act suo moto writ petition (Crl. No. 2/2020) decided on April 16, 2021 CR No. 91/2023 Anil Kumar Goel and Ors Vs. Devi Dayal Garg Page No 15 of 17 has also categorically ruled that the judgements of the court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium (supra) had interpreted law correctly and reiterated that there is no inherent power of the trial courts to review or recall or to reviews of summons. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Court on its own motion vs. State judgment delivered on 20.04.2022 has categorically ruled that 'the Court of a Magistrate do not have the power to discharge the accused upon his appearance in the court in a summoned trial case based upon complaint in general and particularly in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act, once cognizance has already been taken and process under Section 204 issued.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next