Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 352 (4.11 seconds)
Documents citing P.Rajagopal And Ors. Etc. vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 March, 2019

Anilkumar Sher Bahadur Giri vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 December, 2019

134. MCOCA also has a similar scheme as considered in Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors.supra. In case before us, none of the advocates has argued that a second FIR has been registered in relation to murder of the corporator Shri Kamalakar Jamsandekar. On the contrary, the developments demonstrate parity with the facts in matter before the Hon. Apex court in case of Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra). The elements essential for constituting the "CULA" and to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:02:45 ::: 86 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc attract MCOCA surfaced only after a trap in dacoity intelligence on 26.4.2008. After examining those facts, proposal for approval under S. 23(1)(a) of the MCOCA was moved on 18.5.2008 & the competent authority functioning under that Act, granted the permission on 20.5.2008. Thus, before that date there was no MCOCA ofence before the Court or before the competent investigating agency. The Court which had then taken cognizance of the charge sheet dated 7.6.2007 submitted by the Sakinaka police was not the Special Court authorized to take cognizance & the Sakinaka Investigating Ofcer was also not competent to investigate into MCOCA ofences.
Bombay High Court Cites 134 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Gagandeep Kaur vs Rattandeep Singh Grover & Ors on 2 July, 2025

In support of these submissions, plaintiffs placed reliance on the decisions in Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta10, Kasthuri and Others vs. Baskaran and Another11, G. Subramani vs. V. Rajasekaran and Another12, Chandra vs. Reddappa Reddy13, Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India14, Metson Education and Development Association (P) Ltd vs. The Church of South India Trust Association15, Pawan Kumar vs. Babu Lal16, P. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu17, Sarabjit Singh Anand vs. Manjit Singh Anand & Others18, Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State 9 (1994) 6 SCC 632 10 (2006) 5 SCC 638 11 2003 SCC OnLine Mad 550 12 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 1796 13 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 715 14 2003 1 SCC 49 15 2008 1 CTC 521 16 2019 4 SCC 367 17 2019 5 SCC 403 18 2008 SCC OnLine Del 27 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signed Signing Date:04.07.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 17:25:58 13 KUMAR KAURAV Bank of India Staff Association19, Smt. Prakash Wati vs. Dayawanti & Others20, Jagdish Prasad vs. Joti Pershad21, Geeta Tandon vs. Dr. Sunil Gomber & Anothre22, and Manoj Arora vs. Mamta Arora23. Analysis
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Anilkumar Sher Bahadur Giri vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 December, 2019

134. MCOCA also has a similar scheme as considered in Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors.supra. In case before us, none of the advocates has argued that a second FIR has been registered in relation to murder of the corporator Shri Kamalakar Jamsandekar. On the contrary, the developments demonstrate parity with the facts in matter before the Hon. Apex court in case of Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra). The elements essential for constituting the "CULA" and to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:02:29 ::: 86 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc attract MCOCA surfaced only after a trap in dacoity intelligence on 26.4.2008. After examining those facts, proposal for approval under S. 23(1)(a) of the MCOCA was moved on 18.5.2008 & the competent authority functioning under that Act, granted the permission on 20.5.2008. Thus, before that date there was no MCOCA ofence before the Court or before the competent investigating agency. The Court which had then taken cognizance of the charge sheet dated 7.6.2007 submitted by the Sakinaka police was not the Special Court authorized to take cognizance & the Sakinaka Investigating Ofcer was also not competent to investigate into MCOCA ofences.
Bombay High Court Cites 134 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sahebrao Kaluram Bhintade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 December, 2019

134. MCOCA also has a similar scheme as considered in Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors.supra. In case before us, none of the advocates has argued that a second FIR has been registered in relation to murder of the corporator Shri Kamalakar Jamsandekar. On the contrary, the developments demonstrate parity with the facts in matter before the Hon. Apex court in case of Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra). The elements essential for constituting the "CULA" and to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:24 ::: 86 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc attract MCOCA surfaced only after a trap in dacoity intelligence on 26.4.2008. After examining those facts, proposal for approval under S. 23(1)(a) of the MCOCA was moved on 18.5.2008 & the competent authority functioning under that Act, granted the permission on 20.5.2008. Thus, before that date there was no MCOCA ofence before the Court or before the competent investigating agency. The Court which had then taken cognizance of the charge sheet dated 7.6.2007 submitted by the Sakinaka police was not the Special Court authorized to take cognizance & the Sakinaka Investigating Ofcer was also not competent to investigate into MCOCA ofences.
Bombay High Court Cites 134 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sandeep @ Sandy Baliram Gangan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 December, 2019

134. MCOCA also has a similar scheme as considered in Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors.supra. In case before us, none of the advocates has argued that a second FIR has been registered in relation to murder of the corporator Shri Kamalakar Jamsandekar. On the contrary, the developments demonstrate parity with the facts in matter before the Hon. Apex court in case of Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra). The elements essential for constituting the "CULA" and to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:01:24 ::: 86 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc attract MCOCA surfaced only after a trap in dacoity intelligence on 26.4.2008. After examining those facts, proposal for approval under S. 23(1)(a) of the MCOCA was moved on 18.5.2008 & the competent authority functioning under that Act, granted the permission on 20.5.2008. Thus, before that date there was no MCOCA ofence before the Court or before the competent investigating agency. The Court which had then taken cognizance of the charge sheet dated 7.6.2007 submitted by the Sakinaka police was not the Special Court authorized to take cognizance & the Sakinaka Investigating Ofcer was also not competent to investigate into MCOCA ofences.
Bombay High Court Cites 134 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sunil Sadashiv Ghate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 December, 2019

134. MCOCA also has a similar scheme as considered in Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors.supra. In case before us, none of the advocates has argued that a second FIR has been registered in relation to murder of the corporator Shri Kamalakar Jamsandekar. On the contrary, the developments demonstrate parity with the facts in matter before the Hon. Apex court in case of Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra). The elements essential for constituting the "CULA" and to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:00:40 ::: 86 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc attract MCOCA surfaced only after a trap in dacoity intelligence on 26.4.2008. After examining those facts, proposal for approval under S. 23(1)(a) of the MCOCA was moved on 18.5.2008 & the competent authority functioning under that Act, granted the permission on 20.5.2008. Thus, before that date there was no MCOCA ofence before the Court or before the competent investigating agency. The Court which had then taken cognizance of the charge sheet dated 7.6.2007 submitted by the Sakinaka police was not the Special Court authorized to take cognizance & the Sakinaka Investigating Ofcer was also not competent to investigate into MCOCA ofences.
Bombay High Court Cites 134 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Zubaitha Begum vs The State Represented By Its

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 06:53:48 pm ) W.P.No.30216 of 2024, etc. batch ii. In Rajan v. State of T.N. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that a convict cannot be directed to be released from prison pending consideration of the petition for premature release. All that he is entitled to is to have his petition for premature released considered on merits in terms of G.O.Ms.No.12 or any other policy prevailing at the relevant point of time. If the same is rejected, it is open to him to challenge it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a manner known to law. This decision has unfortunately not been brought to the notice of the previous Division Benches.
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

Arun Gulab Gawli vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 December, 2019

134. MCOCA also has a similar scheme as considered in Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors.supra. In case before us, none of the advocates has argued that a second FIR has been registered in relation to murder of the corporator Shri Kamalakar Jamsandekar. On the contrary, the developments demonstrate parity with the facts in matter before the Hon. Apex court in case of Pradeep Ram Vs.The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra). The elements essential for constituting the "CULA" and to ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2019 18:02:02 ::: 86 Judg.Apeal.1157.12 aw connected matters.doc attract MCOCA surfaced only after a trap in dacoity intelligence on 26.4.2008. After examining those facts, proposal for approval under S. 23(1)(a) of the MCOCA was moved on 18.5.2008 & the competent authority functioning under that Act, granted the permission on 20.5.2008. Thus, before that date there was no MCOCA ofence before the Court or before the competent investigating agency. The Court which had then taken cognizance of the charge sheet dated 7.6.2007 submitted by the Sakinaka police was not the Special Court authorized to take cognizance & the Sakinaka Investigating Ofcer was also not competent to investigate into MCOCA ofences.
Bombay High Court Cites 134 - Cited by 3 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next