Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 2575 (2.10 seconds)
Documents citing Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency P. Ltd. vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 28 March, 2018

Chandrapal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 November, 2023

"The applicant/plaintiffs filed the stay order before the trial court, but, the trial court vide order dated 26.11.2018 relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (Suppl) ADJ 209, declined to stay the suit proceedings for the reason that the order passed by this Court extending the interim order is not a speaking order in terms of Asian Resurfacing (supra). In the opinion of the trial court the interim order passed by this Court staying the suit proceedings stands vacated, consequently, the trial court by order dated 26.11.2018 has posted the suit for evidence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 379 - Cited by 0 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Sri. R. Sharanappa Gouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2021

26. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the fact that the complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to interdict the investigation in this case. On the other hand, the complaint clearly shows that the 55 petitioners were all working in Koppal not only during the period 21.9.2013 to 6.2.2014 but also during the subsequent period when the work was continued to be executed and the payments towards bills were made for the works executed and the documents were falsified for the said purpose. It is therefore necessary that a proper investigation is held to bring out the truth. It is also evident that the investigation to be held by the investigating agency will be mostly confined to examination of the records, and therefore, personal liberty of the petitioners is not going to be affected. It is in the larger interest of public as well as the petitioners themselves, that the allegations are investigated and the facts are properly looked into in view of the fact that the crores of rupees are alleged to have been swindled in the guise of execution of work.
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri P Vishwanath vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2021

26. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the fact that the complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to interdict the investigation in this case. On the other hand, the complaint clearly shows that the 55 petitioners were all working in Koppal not only during the period 21.9.2013 to 6.2.2014 but also during the subsequent period when the work was continued to be executed and the payments towards bills were made for the works executed and the documents were falsified for the said purpose. It is therefore necessary that a proper investigation is held to bring out the truth. It is also evident that the investigation to be held by the investigating agency will be mostly confined to examination of the records, and therefore, personal liberty of the petitioners is not going to be affected. It is in the larger interest of public as well as the petitioners themselves, that the allegations are investigated and the facts are properly looked into in view of the fact that the crores of rupees are alleged to have been swindled in the guise of execution of work.
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yamnappa Hanamappa Iddalagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2021

26. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the fact that the complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to interdict the investigation in this case. On the other hand, the complaint clearly shows that the 55 petitioners were all working in Koppal not only during the period 21.9.2013 to 6.2.2014 but also during the subsequent period when the work was continued to be executed and the payments towards bills were made for the works executed and the documents were falsified for the said purpose. It is therefore necessary that a proper investigation is held to bring out the truth. It is also evident that the investigation to be held by the investigating agency will be mostly confined to examination of the records, and therefore, personal liberty of the petitioners is not going to be affected. It is in the larger interest of public as well as the petitioners themselves, that the allegations are investigated and the facts are properly looked into in view of the fact that the crores of rupees are alleged to have been swindled in the guise of execution of work.
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri S Ravi Prasad vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2021

26. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the fact that the complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to interdict the investigation in this case. On the other hand, the complaint clearly shows that the 55 petitioners were all working in Koppal not only during the period 21.9.2013 to 6.2.2014 but also during the subsequent period when the work was continued to be executed and the payments towards bills were made for the works executed and the documents were falsified for the said purpose. It is therefore necessary that a proper investigation is held to bring out the truth. It is also evident that the investigation to be held by the investigating agency will be mostly confined to examination of the records, and therefore, personal liberty of the petitioners is not going to be affected. It is in the larger interest of public as well as the petitioners themselves, that the allegations are investigated and the facts are properly looked into in view of the fact that the crores of rupees are alleged to have been swindled in the guise of execution of work.
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sri S Ravi Prasad vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2021

26. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the fact that the complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to interdict the investigation in this case. On the other hand, the complaint clearly shows that the 55 petitioners were all working in Koppal not only during the period 21.9.2013 to 6.2.2014 but also during the subsequent period when the work was continued to be executed and the payments towards bills were made for the works executed and the documents were falsified for the said purpose. It is therefore necessary that a proper investigation is held to bring out the truth. It is also evident that the investigation to be held by the investigating agency will be mostly confined to examination of the records, and therefore, personal liberty of the petitioners is not going to be affected. It is in the larger interest of public as well as the petitioners themselves, that the allegations are investigated and the facts are properly looked into in view of the fact that the crores of rupees are alleged to have been swindled in the guise of execution of work.
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.V.H.P.Rao vs Union Of India on 22 September, 2025

12. In the present case, the challenge to the impugned show cause notice is not on any of the aforesaid four grounds for the petitioner to maintain the present writ petitions. Since, the impugned proceedings both in the writ petitions being a show cause notice, to which, the petitioner ought to have submitted his explanation, by taking all the available pleas open to him in law and the petitioner instead of submitting an explanation, having assailed the show cause notice before this court invoking writ jurisdiction relying on Rule https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:39:23 pm ) WP Nos.32053/2013 & 1908 / 2019 54 of CISF Rules, conferring power on the Revisional Authority to pass an order within a period of six months from the date of service of the order, which is sought to be revised. In the fact of the present case, the order of the 5th respondent is dated 31.05.2013. The petitioner even before the expiry of six months time provided under the Rule 54 of the Rules on the 4th respondent authority issuing Show Cause Notice seeking to revise the order passed by the 5th respondent assailed the same by filing a writ petition and also obtained an order of stay from this court which is in force till date. Though the respondent on account of the judgment of the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd Vs. CBI, wherein, the Apex Court had held that order of stay would stand vacated automatically on expiry of six months, claimed to have issued the second show cause notice, in view of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the second show cause notice dated 2/3.01.2019 as issued containing the same imputations as contained in show cause notice dated 14.11.2013 which has been stayed by this Court is not warranted; and that the respondent authorities are to be directed to proceed only on the basis of the show cause notice issued earlier on 14.11.2013. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 03:39:23 pm ) WP Nos.32053/2013 & 1908 / 2019
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.K.Yashodara vs The State Of Telangana on 27 February, 2023

In the event of the prosecution or the accused not producing the order of any stay which is subsisting as on the date of next date of hearing in the trial Court, in accordance with the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation's case, the Juvenile Board is directed to proceed with the trial by marking the documents which are subject matter of KS,J Crl.Petition No.1953_2023 4 Criminal Revision Case No.653 of 2012. Needless to say that any interim order would expire after six months in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra.
Telangana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next