Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (2.45 seconds)
Documents citing State(Tr)Central Bureau Of ... vs Shri Kalyan Singh(Former Cm Of Up) & Ors on 19 April, 2017

Haji Mahboob Ahmad And Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lucknow ... on 9 November, 2022

(23) At this juncture, it would also be apt to note that as stated hereinabove, judgment and order dated 02.02.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 681 of 1994 arising out of Case Crime No. 201 of 1992 lodged by the appellant no.1 and final report dated 28.04.1993 filed in Case Crime No. 216A of 1992 lodged by appellant no.2, have attained finality, therefore, this Court is of the view that both the orders dated 02.02.1998 and 28.04.1993 can be regarded as res judicata in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in State Vs. Kalyan Singh and others (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Kalyan Singh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 July, 2023

5. In view of aforesaid, settled position of law by the apex court and considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case and looking at the nature of dispute between the parties, which was private dispute between individual and there is no larger impact on the society and due to the aforesaid settlement between the parties, the peace will prevail in the neighbourhood and in the society and further keeping in mind the cross case filed by the applicants has already been quashed due to the aforesaid settlement between the parties, therefore no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the instant case. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 920 of 2019 (State Vs. Kalyan Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 94 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 & 308 IPC, Police Station-Shamshabad, District Agra, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Agra, are hereby quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2021

54. The second part of Section 184(7) provides that the Government shall take a decision regarding the 57 State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2014) 8 SCC 883; State v. Kalyan Singh & Ors. (2017) 7 SCC 444 67 | P a g e recommendations made by the SCSC preferably within a period of three months. This is in response to the direction given by this Court in MBA-III that the Government shall make appointments to tribunals within three months from the completion of the selection and recommendation by the SCSC. Such direction was necessitated in view of the lethargy shown by the Union of India in making appointments and filling up the posts of Chairpersons and Members of tribunals which have been long vacant. The tribunals which are constituted as an alternative mechanism for speedy resolution of disputes have become non-functional due to the large number of posts which are kept unfilled for a long period of time. Tribunals have become ineffective vehicles of administration of justice, resulting in complete denial of access to justice to the litigant public. The conditions of service for appointment to the posts of Chairpersons and Members have been mired in controversy for the past several years, thereby, adversely affecting the basic functioning of tribunals. This Court is aghast to note that some tribunals are on the verge of closure due to the absence of Members. The direction given by this Court for expediting the process of appointment was in the larger interest of administration of justice and to uphold the rule of law. Section 184(7) as 68 | P a g e amended by the Ordinance permitting the Government to take a decision preferably within three months from the date of recommendation of the SCSC is invalid and unconstitutional, as this amended provision simply seeks to negate the directions of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 179 - Cited by 8 - L N Rao - Full Document

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2022

111. In the context of this provision, it was emphatically argued before us by the petitioners that it would take away one right of appeal, otherwise available under the 1973 Code. Resultantly, Section 44(1)(c) of the 2002 Act in particular, is unconstitutional. To buttress this submission, reliance has been placed on the dictum in A.R. Antulay570. However, this ground need not detain us in view of the just stand taken by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India relying on the decision of this Court in State (Through Central Bureau of Investigation) vs. Kalyan Singh (Former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh) & Ors.571, which 570 Supra at Footnote No.134 571 (2017) 7 SCC 444 402 has considered similar challenge. The latter decision has distinguished the exposition in A.R. Antulay572. In that, the core issue considered in A.R. Antulay573 was whether the High Court was competent to transfer the criminal trial pending before the Special Court dealing with the offence of PC Act, to itself by invoking powers under Section 407 of the 1973 Code. The Court answered the same in the negative and held that such power does not exist in the High Court and it would inevitably violate Article 21 of the Constitution. However, we are dealing with the dispensation provided by the law made by the Parliament in the form of 2002 Act. This being a special legislation and keeping in view the purport of Sections 65 and 71 of the 2002 Act, it is not possible to countenance the ground of challenge under consideration. We may usefully refer to paragraph 28 of Kalyan Singh574, which reads thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 580 - Cited by 293 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Advantage India vs Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr. on 22 August, 2023

" 366. In the context of this provision, it was Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA W.P.(CRL) 1463/2021 Page 2 of 5 Signing Date:25.08.2023 11:28:52 emphatically argued before us by the petitioners that it would take away one right of appeal, otherwise available under the 1973 Code. Resultantly Section 44(1) (c) of the 2002 Act in particular, is unconstitutional. To buttress this submission, reliance has been placed on the dictum in A.R. Antulay570. However, this ground need not detain us in view of the just stand taken by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India relying on the decision of this Court in State (Through Central Bureau of Investigation) vs. Kalyan Singh (Former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh) & Ors.571, which 570 Supra at Footnote No.134 571 (2017) 7 SCC 444 has considered similar challenge. The latter decision has distinguished the exposition in A.R. Antulay 572. In that, the core issue considered in A.R. Antulay573 was whether the High Court was competent to transfer the criminal trial pending before the Special Court dealing with the offence of PC Act, to itself by invoking powers under Section 407 of the 1973 Code. The Court answered the same in the negative and held that such power does not exist in the High Court and it would inevitably violate Article 21 of the Constitution. However, we are dealing with the dispensation provided by the law made by the Parliament in the form of 2002 Act. This being a special legislation and keeping in view the purport of Sections 65 and 71 of the 2002 Act, it is not possible to countenance the ground of challenge under consideration. We may usefully refer to paragraph 28 of Kalyan Singh 574, which reads thus:
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S K Kait - Full Document

X vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2023

21. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court has the power to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause 18 Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC 296; Order dated 3 September 2020 in M.A. No.1434 of 2020 in Misc. Application Diary No.15272 of 2020 in Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2019 16 or matter pending before it. In State v. Kalyan Singh, 19 this Court observed that Article 142 permitted it to relax the application of law depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Nadeem vs State Of U.P. on 30 March, 2018

as well as order dated 24/04/2017 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (F) in case no. 17 of 2016/D- 2016111701864, (State vs Kalyan and others) under section 6A of Essential Commodities Act (to be referred as the Act from here onwards in brief), PS, Pahasu, District Bulandshahar, whereby the rice of the revisionist has been confiscated in favour of the Government. It is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and direction be issued to release the wrongly confiscated 275 quintals of rice in favour of the revisionist.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next