Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Lavanya C. vs Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deceased By Lrs ... on 27 January, 2023

Sadiq B. Hanchinmani vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2025

‘18. When a Magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence itself. As said earlier, in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). However, if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to revert back to the pre- cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3).’ (emphasis supplied) 7 This position of law was recently reiterated in Lavanya C v Vittal Gurudas Pai, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 499, where one of us (P. Mithal, J.) was part of the coram.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - P Mithal - Full Document

Lal Mani Jain vs Avtar Singh on 1 April, 2026

50. As far as the issue of the disobedience of the earlier passed injunction order is concerned, it is vehemently argued by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that the application u/o XXXIX rule 2 A CPC, 1908 was filed and it was necessary for the Ld. Trial Court to be decided and the said applications could not have been left unadjudicated. Although, this Court is in full confirmity with the law laid down in Lavanya C. (Supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Digitally signed by CNR No. DLSE01-001786-2016 Lal Mani Jain Vs. Avtar Singh & Anr.Atul Page 27 of Atul 30 Ahlawat RCA DJ No. 20307/2016 Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar vs Kewal Krishan And Others on 12 May, 2026

14. Again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Lavanya C. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deseased, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2701936 has held that "any undertaking given by counsel, once recorded or incorporated into a court order, remains operative unless promptly challenged or withdrawn. Crucially, the subsequent dismissal of the suit or alleged deficiencies in the property description do not absolve a party from liability if the undertaking is later violated."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Durgadevi Venkatesan vs Thiru Baskara Pandian on 12 March, 2025

16. This Court would like to refer to the latest judgment passed by the 14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 08:26:59 pm ) Cont.P.No.856 of 2024 Apex Court in Smt.Lavanya C and another vs. Vittal Gurudas Pai reported in 2025 INSC 325, and Samee Khan vs. Bindu Khan reported in (1998) 7 SCC 59, wherein the Apex Court observed that even if the order of injunction passed by the Court is set aside in appeal, the failure of the respondent to comply with the order during which it was in force would amount to wilful disobedience.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Poonam Shukla vs Rahul Shukla on 11 June, 2025

In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Lavanya (supra) and considering the facts of the present case, initiation of action against the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC during the pendency of the civil suit is still maintainable after dismissal of the civil suit, therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or pervisity in registering the MJC No. 150/2019 against the petitioner on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC which warrants interfrence by this Court.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Kiran P Jain (Advocate) vs Axis Finance Ltd. And Ors on 17 November, 2025

12. A statement of an advocate about purported policy decision has been denied before us by filing specific affidavit. It is not a statement about any singular act, but pertains to policy decision of the Government. Therefore the argument based on such statement need not detain us any further. For that reason, the judgment in the matter of Smt. Lavanya C. & Anr. (supra) will not help the Respondent.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next