Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Harjeet Singh vs State Of West Bengal on 6 April, 2005

Smt. Jyoti Belur vs C.B.I. Thru' Inspector on 9 July, 2013

With humble regards, I do not agree with the decisions in Criminal Revision No.163 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.3629 of 2004 passed by Single Judges of this Court because the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. are not helping the present revisionist and the law declared by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Hari Singh Mann (supra) and Harjeet Singh Vs. State of West Bengal (supra) makes it clear that a judgment of the High Court on appeal or revision cannot be reviewed or revised except in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no provisions to recall an order passed on the merits.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re: Pratibha Saxena vs Unknown on 4 August, 2006

In this case, relying upon the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Moti Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh , It was held that the law laid down by the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court In the case of Harjeet Singh v. State of W.B., referred to above, can no longer be treated to be a good law. It was further held in this ruling that the provisions of Section 362 of the Code act as a bar in recalling an order passed by the Court even if it is found subsequently that previous order passed by the Court was offending the principles of natural justice. In this case, the facts were that the order was passed by a Magistrate in a case under Sections 379/411, I.P.C. whereby he had rejected the prayer of Harjeet Singh as well as of Opposite party No. 2 P. G. Enterprises for return of vehicle which was involved in the above case. Aggrieved with that order Harjeet Singh filed a revision and it was put up before the High Court as an unlisted motion and on that very date of presentation it was disposed of directing that the vehicle be given to the revisionist Harjeet Singh. The revision was finally disposed of at the very stage of admission. Thereafter the opposite party moved an application for recalling the aforesaid ex parte order, as no notice of revision was given to him. A question arose whether the above application was maintainable or not.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R K Rastogi - Full Document

Smt. Gayatri Mishra Wife Of Shri ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 25 May, 2007

10. The same controversy arose in the case of Harjeet Singh v. State of West Bengal 2005 Cr.L.J. 3286 (F.B.). It was a case of Calcutta, and in this case the facts were that at the time of hearing on admission of a revision, one Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court without notice to the opposite parties passed an order for release of a seized vehicle in favour of revisionist. Thereafter the opposite party appeared and moved an application for setting aside the above exparte order of release of the vehicle on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to ii before passing the impugned order and so the order should be set aside and suitable order should be passed after hearing him also. Then the question arose whether such an order could be recalled or reviewed in view of the bar of Section 362 Cr.P.C. and the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court, after considering the case law on the point held that it has no jurisdiction to recall the order of the Single Judge. Their lord ships observed in para 52 of the judgment:
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - R K Rastogi - Full Document

Suresh Kumar vs State on 24 March, 2008

14. A judgment of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in HARJEET SINGH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2005 (2) MWN (Cr.)(FB) 109 (Cal.)) can be usefully referred to as the ratio laid down therein fits in squarely to the facts and circumstances of this case. It has been held by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court that the court cannot review or recall its final order even in cases where the parties come up before it feeling that they have not been heard or they have left out something which, if placed before the court, may have resulted in a decision and that the decision arrived in their absence was an impaired finding. Once, the court lifts its pen after signing the verdict, it cannot put it once again except to rectify a clerical or arithmetical error, it has been further held therein.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Preeju David vs Minor Mebel on 14 July, 2017

Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in Harjeet Singh v. State of West Bengal (2005 KHC 2946) had held that once the Court lifts its pen after signature, it cannot put it once again except for rectifying a clerical or arithmetical error as contemplated under section 362 Cr.P.C. In the light of that specific provision, Court cannot either review or recall the order, even it is found that it offends the principle of natural justice, it was held.
Kerala High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S Thomas - Full Document

Preeju David vs Minor Mebel on 14 July, 2017

Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in Harjeet Singh v. State of West Bengal (2005 KHC 2946) had held that once the Court lifts its pen after signature, it cannot put it once again except for rectifying a clerical or arithmetical error as contemplated under section 362 Cr.P.C. In the light of that specific provision, Court cannot either review or recall the order, even it is found that it offends the principle of natural justice, it was held.
Kerala High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 2 - S Thomas - Full Document
1   2 Next