Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)

Dattu Devram Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 December, 2021

In support, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has tendered across the bar a decision of this Court in the case of Narayanlal Mansaram Rawal vs. Union of India and Anr. 1 which was a similar case of an application for suspension of conviction of the applicant - accused for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which decision refers to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ravikant S.Patil vs. Sarvabhabhouma S. Bagali2, wherein a 3 Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the power to stay conviction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. He refers to paragraph 10 thereof to submit that unless the attention of the Court is drawn to specific consequences that would follow on account of conviction, the convict cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction and that grant of stay of conviction is to be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case, which he submits do not exist in applicant's favour in the present case. Paragraph 10 referred to above is usefully quoted as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Kailas Narayan Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 December, 2021

In support, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has tendered across the bar a decision of this Court in the case of Narayanlal Mansaram Rawal vs. Union of India and Anr. 1 which was a similar case of an application for suspension of conviction of the applicant - accused for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which decision refers to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ravikant S.Patil vs. Sarvabhabhouma S. Bagali2, wherein a 3 Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the power to stay conviction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. He refers to paragraph 10 thereof to submit that unless the attention of the Court is drawn to specific consequences that would follow on account of conviction, the convict cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction and that grant of stay of conviction is to be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case, which he submits do not exist in applicant's favour in the present case. Paragraph 10 referred to above is usefully quoted as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 December, 2021

In support, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has tendered across the bar a decision of this Court in the case of Narayanlal Mansaram Rawal vs. Union of India and Anr. 1 which was a similar case of an application for suspension of conviction of the applicant - accused for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which decision refers to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ravikant S.Patil vs. Sarvabhabhouma S. Bagali2, wherein a 3 Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the power to stay conviction should be exercised only in exceptional 1 2019 SCC Online Bom 4943 2 (2007) 1 SCC 673 Page 7 of 10 ia.1633.2019 (O).doc circumstances where failure to stay would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. He refers to paragraph 10 thereof to submit that unless the attention of the Court is drawn to specific consequences that would follow on account of conviction, the convict cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction and that grant of stay of conviction is to be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case, which he submits do not exist in applicant's favour in the present case. Paragraph 10 referred to above is usefully quoted as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Bhagat Ravalmal Balani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 December, 2021

In support, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has tendered across the bar a decision of this Court in the case of Page 5 of 8 ia.1634.2019 (O).doc Narayanlal Mansaram Rawal vs. Union of India and Anr. 1 which was a similar case of an application for suspension of conviction of the applicant - accused for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which decision refers to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ravikant S.Patil vs. Sarvabhabhouma S. Bagali2, wherein a 3 Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the power to stay conviction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. He refers to paragraph 10 thereof to submit that unless the attention of the Court is drawn to specific consequences that would follow on account of conviction, the convict cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction and that grant of stay of conviction is to be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case, which he submits do not exist in applicant's favour in the present case. Paragraph 10 referred to above is usefully quoted as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document
1