Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 226 (5.31 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka vs Union Of India & Another on 8 November, 1977

State vs Deepawan on 13 May, 2025

2. The facts of the prosecution case are that deceased Roopa got married with accused Deepawan on 25.05.2015 ( as deposed by PW-2 Ms. Sangeeta, friend of deceased). Out of the said wedlock, no issue was born. Her marriage with accused Deepawan was an inter caste marriage for which her parents were not agreeable to as she was from uneserved category whereas accused was belonging to some reserved category, probably SC category. She committed suicide on 07.01.2019 by hanging herself in her rented accommodation where she was staying with the accused. Since her death had taken place within seven years of her marriage, therefore, the information was given to the concerned Executive Magistrate. Smt. Vidhya Devi, the mother of the deceased got recorded her statement (Ex.PW-5/A) wherein she alleged that the deceased was being harassed by the accused for various reasons and they also demanded dowry from State Vs Deepawan & Anr SC No. 279/2019 FIR No.20/2019 2/21 the deceased. On her statement, the FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was filed against both the accused persons.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sadil on 21 February, 2026

He gave a specious explanation that he could not do so as he was not knowing anyone in the authority. However, this plea is totally unbelievable and apparently false. It was open to the DW1 to give this information in writing in the police station or to the senior officials of police. The same can also be brought to the notice of the court Judgment Page No. 17 of 18 SC No. 777/2022 State Vs. Sadil & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahesh.G vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2019

"A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Union of India, [(1977) 4 SCC 608] had an occasion to examine the scope and amplitude of Art.131. Chandrachud, J. in his concurring judgment at para 162 held as follows: (SCC pp. 690-91) "162. The jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Art.131 of the Constitution should not be tested on the anvil of banal rules which are applied under the Code of Civil Procedure for determining whether a suit is maintainable. Art.131 undoubtedly confers 'original jurisdiction' on the Supreme Court and the commonest form of a legal proceeding which is tried by a Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is a suit. But a constitutional provision, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on this Court to entertain disputes of a certain nature in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, cannot be equated with a provision conferring a right W.P(C) Nos.2224, 5482, 6076, 6823, 7060, 7961 & 21321 of 2019 61 on a civil court to entertain a common suit so as to apply to an original proceeding under Art.131 the canons of a suit which is ordinarily triable under S.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Advisedly, the Constitution does not describe the proceeding which may be brought under Art.131 as a 'suit' and significantly, Art.131 uses words and phrases not commonly employed for determining the jurisdiction of a court of first instance to entertain and try a suit. It does not speak of a 'cause of action', an expression of known and definite legal import in the' word of witness actions. Instead, it employs the word 'dispute', which is no part of the elliptical jargon of law. But above all, Art.131 which in a manner of speaking is a self - contained code on matters falling within its purview, provides expressly for the condition subject to which an action can lie under it. That condition is expressed by the clause: 'if and insofar as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends'. By the very terms of the article, therefore, the sole condition which is required to be satisfied for invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court is that the dispute between the parties referred to in clauses (a) to (c) must involve a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. "
Kerala High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 25 April, 2000

As noticed above the height of Almatti Dam is the principal issue in O.S. No. 2 of 1997: the question therefore arises as to whether non-acceptance of the case of the Plaintiff would mean and imply acceptance of the prayer of the Defendant No. 1 to erect Almatti Dam at an height of FRL 524 mt - the answer however, cannot but be in the negative; more so by reason of the surrounding circumstances. The contentions of the two riparian owners and the specific language of Article 131 of the Constitution and having regard to the assertion of the State of Karnataka of its right to control its supply of water in the manner as it deems fit, interference with the proposal shall have to be had to sub-serve the ends of justice. But before proceeding further in this matter, it would be useful to refer to one of the decisions of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Union of India wherein Bhagwati, J. observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2015

390. For the purposes of the present discussion, I would prefer to follow the view expressed by a Bench of seven learned judges in State of Karnataka v. Union of India that it is only an amendment of the Constitution that can be challenged on the ground that it violates the basic structure of the Constitution – a statute cannot be challenged on the ground that it violates 579 (2014) 10 SCC 1 paragraph 109 (Five Judges Bench) 788 the basic structure of the Constitution. [The only exception to this perhaps could be a statute placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution]. The principles for challenging the constitutionality of a statute are quite different. Challenge to the 99th Constitution Amendment Act – the preliminaries
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 432 - Cited by 0 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Ramesh Chennithala M.L.A vs The State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2026

62. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present legislation, which is admittedly an ordinary law and as observed in the aforesaid judgment, the validity of a Statute cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution, which, in fact, has reaffirmed the view expressed in State of Karnataka v. Union of India 14, as referred to in paragraph 52 of the Anjum Kadari (supra).
Kerala High Court Cites 86 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Das vs Tamil Nadu State Human Rights ... on 27 August, 2010

"The recommendations of Commission of Inquiry are not enforceable proprio vigore. It is not an adjudication. It is merely a recommendation of the Commission. On the basis of the decisions referred to above, much stress has been given on the point that this was not the stage for respondent No.1 to have approached the Court raising any grievance in respect of some observations made here and there while" inquiring into the Bhagalpur communal riots, its reasons and to recommend measures to check such recurrences in future."
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 38 - S Nagamuthu - Full Document

N.Prakash vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2026

62. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present legislation, which is admittedly an ordinary law and as observed in the aforesaid judgment, the validity of a Statute cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution, which, in fact, has reaffirmed the view expressed in State of Karnataka v. Union of India 14, as referred to in paragraph 52 of the Anjum Kadari (supra).
Kerala High Court Cites 86 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next