Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 278 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Surya Baksh Singh vs State Of U.P on 7 October, 2013

In Re- Procedure To Be Followed In ... vs State Of U.P. on 22 January, 2025

Rajoo Alias Ramakant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 (8) SCC 553 1 Raghuvansh Dewan Chand Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 (9) SCC 791 2 Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2007 (12) SCC 1 3 Dhananjay Rai Alias Guddu Rai Vs. State of Bihar 2022 (14) SCC 95 4 K. Muruganandam and others Vs. State, 2021 (20) SCC 642 5 Hussainara Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, 1981 SC 928 (4) 6 Anokhi Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019 (20) SCC 196 7 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 (4) SCC 158 8 Mohammad Hussain Vs. State 2012 (9) SCC 408 9 Niraj Devnarayan Shukla and others Vs. State of Gujarat, 2015 SCC OnLine Gujarat 6269 10 Bani Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1996 (4) SCC 720 11 Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2014 (14) SCC 222 12 K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka, 2013 (3) SCC 721 13 Dilip S Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Company Limited, 2007 (6) SCC 528 14 Satyendra Kumar Antil vs C.B.I. 2022 (10) SCC 51 15 Sarah Matthew Vs. Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, 2014 (2) SCC 62 16 Dhanna Lal Vs. Kalavati Bai, 2002 (6) SCC 16 17 Dayal Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 (3) SCC 263 18 Mohammed Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (7) SCC 443 19 State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav, 2016 (2) SCC 402 20 Somesh Chaurasia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (19) SCC 480 21 Abdul Basit Vs. Mohammed Abdul Qadir Chaudhary, 2014 (10) SCC 754 22 Purshottam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1410 23 Ashish Chaddha Vs. Asha Kumari and another, 2012 (1) SCC 680 24 Madan Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2018 (12) SCC 30 25 Smt. Maya Dixit Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (83) ALR 664 26 State of U.P. and others Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma and another, 2015 (6) SCC 716 27 Praneeta Prakash Navage Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 SCC OnLine Bombay 1085 28 Popular Muthaiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2006 (7) SCC 296 29 Sanjay Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 610 30 State of U.P. Vs. Poosu and another, 1976 (3) SCC 1 31 Kabira Vs. State of U.P., 1982 SCC (Criminal) 144 32 Mohammad Sukur Ali Vs. State of Assam 2011 (4) SCC 729 33 A.S. Mohammed Rafi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 2011 SC 308 34 Man Singh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2008 (9) SCC 542 35 Bapu Limbaji Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (11) SC 412 36 Balakrishna Mahadev Lad Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 SCC OnLine Bombay 1490 37 State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, 2011 (14) SCC 770 38 Laxman Das Vs. Resham Chand Kalia and another, 2018 (3) SCC 187 39 State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh Kariman Tirky and others, 2023 (1) SCC (Criminal) 137 40 Laxman Das Chagan Lal Bhatia and others Vs. State by the High Court of Bombay, AIR 1968 Bombay 400 41 Imtiyaz Raza Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 (9) SCC 160 42 Khatri and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, (1981) 1 SCC 627 43 Suk Das Vs. UT of Arunachal Pradesh, (1986) 2 SCC 401 44 Shyam Deo Pandey Vs. State of Bihar, (1971) 1 SCC 855 45 Ram Naresh Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1500 46 Dharam Pal and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 17 SCC 337 47 Christopher Raj Vs. K. Vijayakumar, (2019) 7 SCC 398 48
Allahabad High Court Cites 141 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mangaru And Others vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2025

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Ratan Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. on 23 April, 2025

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Ashraf vs State Of U.P. on 10 April, 2025

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Dault Ram And Others vs State Of U.P. on 23 July, 2025

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Ferasat vs State Of U.P. on 23 April, 2025

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Laxman vs State Of U.P. on 17 March, 2025

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Laxman vs State Of U.P. on 4 September, 2025

The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court.? 6. Under such circumstances, we proceed to consider the present appeal on merits with the help of Shri Rahul Asthana, learned AGA for the State."
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Rajendra vs State Of U.P. on 19 May, 2025

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Bachcha vs State on 5 May, 2025

152. The aforesaid legal precedents would evidently canvass that the emphasis of the Apex Court has been on providing opportunity of being heard to the appellant who is willing to cooperate with the appellate court or his counsel and in this regard a process to cause his presence for the purpose of giving opportunity of being heard is required to be issued to him and when the court is satisfied that such appellant is deliberately avoiding his presence before the court, in such a situation, the court may dispose of the appeal in the manner approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13 (i.e. after perusing the record/evidence vis-a-vis judgment of the trial court with the assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if appointed) and we do not have any reason to deviate from the settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, moreover, the appointment of amicus is only for the purpose to provide fair trail to the appellant and also for rendering the assistance to the Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next