Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 188 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967

Jai Karan vs Union Of India And 7 Others on 16 July, 2025

10. Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gautam Budh Nagar (respondent No. 6), to decide the Case No. T202311270101530 of 2023 (Jai Karan vs. State of U.P. & Others) strictly in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a maximum period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments will be granted to either of the parties and any adjournment, if prayed for, may be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kumer Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 July, 2021

Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail - as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution - is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice. This Court in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.8 in a similar vein has held that an order of a High Court which does not contain reasons for prima facie concluding that a bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for non- application of mind. This Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 47 - M R Shah - Full Document

Bhaskar Narayanrao Band vs The Vice-Chancellor, Nagpur ... on 11 April, 1969

46. Mr. Bobde has conceded that there is not a single reported case in which the ruling out of a resolution before the meeting has been upheld by the Court, and I am not surprised that that is so. He has only referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Charan Lal v. State of U.P. in which the act of a statutory Chairman adjourning a meeting even before it was held was held to be valid. It may, however, be pertinent to note that under Sub-section (4) of Section 87A of the U.P.. Municipalities Act, 1916, under which that question arose, if a statutory Chairman did not arrive within half an hour from the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting was to stand automatically adjourned to a later date to he notified, and in Sub-section (5) of the same section it was provided, "if the judicial officer is unable to preside at the meeting he may, after recording his reasons, adjourn the meeting" to such other date and time as he may appoint". The rest of that sub-section is not material for the purpose of the present discussion. The Supreme Court in its judgment took into account the fact that Sub-section (4) provided for an automatic adjournment in the absence of the statutory Chairman which made it pointless to take the view that he could not adjourn the meeting in advance even if he knew in advance that he would not be able to attend the meeting. The Supreme Court also took the view that the terms of Sub-section (5) were wide enough to permit the statutory Chairman to adjourn the meeting even before it was held.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ramadhar Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2022

36. Grant of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail - as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution - is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice. This Court in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.8 in a similar vein has held that an order of a High Court which does not contain reasons for prima facie concluding that a bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for nonapplication of mind. This Court observed:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 11 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Charan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2021

06. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.41891/2021 (Charan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) -3- during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Verma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next