Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (5.36 seconds)

Arup Bhuyan vs The State Of Assam Home Department on 24 March, 2023

17. The above distinction in Babulal Parate (supra), was reaffirmed by another Constitution Bench in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate16 (seven-Judge Bench), wherein this Court while dealing with the constitutionality of S.144 of the Cr.P.C. and the scope of restrictions that can be imposed, 16 (1970) 3 SCC 746 19 observed that in America, the First Amendment freedoms have no qualifications, as in India and the American rulings are apt to be misapplied to our Constitution. 17
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 4 - M R Shah - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Kamla Kant Misra And Ors. on 29 October, 1969

20. this Court in Babulal Parate's case sustained the validity of an order made by a Magistrate under Section 144(1) because of the various safeguards provided in the section. It may be seen that an order made by a Magistrate under Section 144(1), Criminal Procedure Code is open to be revised on the basis of any representation made by the aggrieved party and is also revisable by the High Court. An analysis of the section shows that an order under that provision is subject to the following safeguards:
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 19 - J C Shah - Full Document

X Corp vs Union Of India on 24 September, 2025

9. In Constitutional Law of India by H.M. Seervai (4th Edn.), Vol. 1, the author has noticed that the provisions of the two Constitutions as to freedom of speech and expression are essentially different. The difference being accentuated by the provisions of the Indian Constitution for preventive detention which have no counterpart in the US Constitution. Reasonable restriction contemplated under the Indian Constitution brings the matter in the domain of the court as the question of reasonableness is a question primarily for the court to decide. (Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1961 SC 884:
Karnataka High Court Cites 189 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs K. K. Misra & Ors on 29 October, 1969

This Court in Babulal Parate's case(1) sustained the validity of an order made by a Magistrate under s. 144(1) because of the various safeguards provided in the section. It may be seen that an order made by a Magistrate under s. 144(1), Criminal Procedure Code is open to be revised on the basis of any representation made by the aggrieved party and is also revisable by the High Court. An analysis of the section shows that an order -under that provision is subject to the following safeguards :
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 19 - J C Shah - Full Document

Shiv Dutt Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 September, 1972

In support of this proposition I place reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra wherein it has no doubt been said that it was open to the parties concerned to move the District Magistrate and apply for modification of the order by granting them exemption from the restriction placed by the order. But in this very judgment in head note C. it has been made clear;
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Behari Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 1985

10. The principles enunciated in Babulal's case apply with all force to the case on hand. Under these circumstances, the witness Sarwansingh and the wife of the accused were very much responsible for causing grave and sudden provocation to the accused. It has been provided in clauses thirdly fourthly of Section 100 IPC that the right of private defence of the body extends to causing of death in case of an assault with the intention of committing rape or with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust. This is actually a case of commission of rape and, therefore, the case of the accused is covered by the provisions of clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 100 IPC.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next