Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 675 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 1997

Shashikant Mishra vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2024

7. Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon application of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material placed before it. All such material facts and material evidence must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidence collected during the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidence may be placed before the court in that behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane for passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the superior courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered. (See Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1784 :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Nagu - Full Document

The State Of Karnataka vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2023

7. Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon application of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material placed before it. All such material facts and material evidence must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidence collected during the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidence may be placed before the court in that behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane for passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the superior courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered. (See Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1784: 1997 SCC (Cri) 1120].) The authority concerned cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

The State Of Karnataka vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2023

7. Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon application of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material placed before it. All such material facts and material evidence must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidence collected during the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidence may be placed before the court in that behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane for passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the superior courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered. (See Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1784: 1997 SCC (Cri) 1120].) The authority concerned cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Vinay Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 October, 2023

16. In view of aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the grant of sanction for prosecution of applicant is suffering from any material illegality or perversity or non-application of mind. The sanction order in question fulfils the criteria and guidelines laid down in cases of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra) and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is apparent from the perusal of sanction order that the sanctioning authority has considered the material pertaining to the case and applied its mind and was satisfied that a case for prosecution of applicant- Vinay Kumar Singh, the then Office Assistant, Grade-II / In-charge of godown, under Sections 409, 419, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) P. C. Act and for violation of Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Procurement and Regulation of Trade Order, 1982, is made out and accordingly, the sanction was granted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R B Singh - Full Document

Selvi J. Jayalalitha vs The Union Of India on 2 December, 2006

73. The apprehension expressed on the part of the petitioners that the prosecution will go about trigger happy, 'picking and choosing' whom to shoot down, is allayed by the mandatory requirement of sanction. Sanction is not an automatic formality and its provisions are to be observed with complete strictness. It is a weapon to ensure discouragement of a frivolous and vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, but not a shield for the guilty  vide Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 S.C.C. 622]. This position further weakens the attack of unconstitutionality and arbitrariness.
Madras High Court Cites 175 - Cited by 1 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Selvi J. Jayalalitha, Sasi Enterprises ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 December, 2006

In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat , a sanction order was challenged. Several important principles can be culled out from this decision and they are that-(a) it is not an automatic formality; (b) public interest should be kept in mind ; (c) it is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution; (d) it must ex facie disclose that the authority had considered the evidence and other materials ; (e) the authority has to apply its own independent mind; and (0 it should not be under pressure from any quarter. Tested against these guidelines, the Supreme Court, in that case, held that the sanction order was bad because the sanction order was given by the secretary on the direction of the High Court to grant sanction. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the High Court closed all other alternatives to the secretary. But in the same case, the Supreme Court spelt out five tests to be applied for reviewing the sanction order. These five tests have already been extracted in ground No. (10) of paragraph 5 above.
Madras High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 1 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 January, 2025

7. Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon application of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material placed before it. All such material facts and material evidence must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidence collected during the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidence may be placed before the court in that behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane for passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the Superior Courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered. [See Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat]. [(1997) 7 SCC 622]. The authority concerned cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hari Sankaran vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

123--- Advocate Khambata submits that when the Ministry of Corporate Affairs applied to NCLT on 10/06/2019, they have ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:05:20 ::: HVN 75 approached it on the basis of interim report and MCA has not filed any affidavit in the present matter to explain that in their pleadings there, words "interim report" are loosely used. The deponent who submitted said plea before NCLT has not even chosen to file any reply affidavit before this court. 124--- Dealing with the issue of sanctions/directions, he adds that the so called processing note prepared by the officer for convenience has not been made available though demanded. He therefore, requests the Court to draw an adverse inference. He relies upon (1997) 7 SCC 622: Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (paragraphs 18 and 19) to demonstrate non-application of mind and to show that the respondents have not made out any case. He accepts that the petitioner BSR worked as joint auditor with Deloitte only for four months. The issue regarding ever-greening of loans was going on between IFIN and RBI since last more than two years. The RBI did not agree with the ever-greening and also did not accept the cases relied upon for that purpose. According to him, there was confusion over scope & impact of ever- ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:05:20 ::: HVN 76 greening, and this is supported by the observations of SFIO. The RBI was aware about it and hence, it was not at all the concealed position.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next