Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 130 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991

Sh. Mohan Lal S/O Sh. Sujan Lal vs Union Of India Through on 7 July, 2011

3. It appears respondent Directorate of Estates vide letter dated 13.03.2008 cancelled the allotment of the aforesaid premises with effect from 30.07.2000. It further appears that since appellant continued to occupy the said premises, eviction proceedings were PPA No. 22/09 Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India. 2 of 5 taken out before the Estate Officer in which regard notice under Section 4(2) of the Public Premise Act was issued on 24.03.2008 by the Estate Officer calling upon the appellant no.1 to appear to show cause to the contrary.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjeev Nanda vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 May, 2007

15. The petitioner had placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Shyamji Soni v. Union of India 1991 SCC (Cr) 595, Hindustan Construction Co. v. Gopal Krishna , Nissar Khan v. State of Uttaranchal and Satyajit Banerjee v. State of West Bengal . It was contended that these decisions have conclusively ruled that the courts cannot seek recourse to Section 311 in respect of witnesses who had been given up, or in respect of whom earlier applications were rejected. It was contended that allowing later applications, or summoning such witnesses at later stage, would amount to review or recall of the earlier orders, which is clearly impermissible. Section 311 cannot be used to cure lacunae in the prosecution.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 8 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Satish S/O. Nagnath Shinde And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 December, 2018

In the said judgment, it has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex court that, "...the Criminal Court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the Court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 04:53:30 ::: Cr.WP Nos. 1432/18 & 1436/18 (33) requirements of justice command the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - P R Bora - Full Document

Popat S/O. Nagnath Shinde And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 December, 2018

In the said judgment, it has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex court that, "...the Criminal Court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the Court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 04:53:28 ::: Cr.WP Nos. 1432/18 & 1436/18 (33) requirements of justice command the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - P R Bora - Full Document

Poonam Devi vs . Saroj Order Dated 06.07.2019 on 6 July, 2019

10. Ld. Trial court has referred to Mohan Lal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India in support of his order and he was of the opinion that the power should not be used for filling up the lacuna left by the prosecution for the defence. It is pertinent to note that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has mentioned in the impugned order that although it is necessary to prove the dishonour of cheque on record for which dishonour memos are crucial piece of evidence but there can be other circumstances through which fact of dishonour can be proved. This observation of the trial court shows that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate agreed to the fact that proving the cheque returning memo is crucial piece of evidence.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In The Matter Of: Shyam Sunder vs State Nct Of Delhi on 5 November, 2020

In Mohan Lal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and Anr. reported as 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 540 of the old Code (corresponding to Section 311 of the new Code). It was observed that the Section is manifestly in two parts. The first part which uses the word 'may' enables the Court to act in one of the following three ways:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M K Ohri - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Madhu @ Kutti Madhu on 6 January, 2021

In Mohan Lal v. Union of India (1991 Supp (1) SCC 271) this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the word such as, "any Court" "at any stage", or "any enquiry or trial or other proceedings" "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the Section has expressed in the widest possible terms and do Crl.Appeal No.1357 of 2019 & Crl.Appeal (V) No.33 of 2019 & connected cases 73 not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. However, as noted above, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary powers should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds the Court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case - "essential" to an active and alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the Section is to enable the court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The power is exercised and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if the Court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of Section 311 but only to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. It is done with an object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth."
Kerala High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Madhu @ Kutti Madhu on 6 January, 2021

In Mohan Lal v. Union of India (1991 Supp (1) SCC 271) this Court has observed, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that the very usage of the word such as, "any Court" "at any stage", or "any enquiry or trial or other proceedings" "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the Section has expressed in the widest possible terms and do Crl.Appeal No.1357 of 2019 & Crl.Appeal (V) No.33 of 2019 & connected cases 73 not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. However, as noted above, the very width requires a corresponding caution that the discretionary powers should be invoked as the exigencies of justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates and binds the Court to take necessary steps if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case - "essential" to an active and alert mind and not to one which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the Section is to enable the court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. The power is exercised and the evidence is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if the Court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of Section 311 but only to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. It is done with an object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth."
Kerala High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next