Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 359 (3.80 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2019

Techno Freshworld Llp vs Maharashtra Housing And Development ... on 5 May, 2026

120. We clarify that considering the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Union of India vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra), which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in dismissing the SLP (Civil) Diary No. 13483/2024 by order dated 27 September, 2024, we do not delve on prayer clause (c) in which the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Circulars as issued by MoD.
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Union Of India vs Maharashtra Housing And Area ... on 5 May, 2026

120. We clarify that considering the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Union of India vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra), which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in dismissing the SLP (Civil) Diary No. 13483/2024 by order dated 27 September, 2024, we do not delve on prayer clause (c) in which the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Circulars as issued by MoD.
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Vinod Dua vs Union Of India on 3 June, 2021

statutory framework in the decisions discussed above. We are conscious that the directions issued in Jacob Mathew4 had received approval by a Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari5, but those guidelines issued in Jacob Mathew4 stand on parameter which are completely distinguishable from the subsequent decisions of three Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra and Others70 and in Social Action Forum for manav Adhikar and Another vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and Others71. Any relief granted in terms of second prayer would certainly, in our view, amount to encroachment upon the field reserved for the legislature. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer and dismissing the Writ Petition to that extent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 125 - Cited by 16 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Bijender Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 February, 2024

67. The complainant's grievance (b) is that the appellant has not charged the accused persons with relevant provisions. The above cited judgements clearly shows that the Magistrate cannot interfere during Digitally Signed CRL. A. 292/2020 Page 29 of 36 By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:08.02.2024 14:44:06 the investigation except in rare cases or on the application filed by the complainant during the investigation. Once the chargesheet is filed before the Court, the Magistrate may or may not accept the report or order further investigation but the Magistrate cannot question the formation of opinion arrived by the appellant being the IO as held in Union of India (supra). Further, the Magistrate after taking cognizance can add, alter or subtract the offences as per the evidences collected by the IO during the stage of framing of charges.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Priti Agarwalla vs The State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 17 May, 2024

18.1 In National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (supra) and Union of India v. State of Maharashtra (supra), this Court has held that the constitutional goal of equality for all citizens of this country can be achieved only when the rights of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are protected. The prosecution machinery and adjudicatory bodies work to achieve this constitutional goal. The FIR registered and investigation must be taken forward subject to the complaint satisfying the requirements of an offence complained under the 31 Act of 1989.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Parmanand Sindhi S/O Shri Asandas vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjp/010210) on 10 May, 2023

The question is whether learned trial Court had considered the record. Herein the charge under Section 420 IPC was made on the ground that after taking a room on rent a forged agreement of sale was crafted in back date with dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Herein, the statement of witness along with supporting evidence is available, similarly charge Nos. 2 and 3 are specific. As regard to charge Nos. 2 and 3, the fact is that this agreement of sale was used to obtain commercial electricity connection. Allegation was also that a consent letter was also fabricated and for the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, enough material was available and learned trial court had incorporated the essential ingredients in the charge itself. As regard to use of SC/ST (POA) Act is concerned, if there are certain provisions contained in a substantial Act to prevent atrocities on a particular group of community and it is in (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:20:07 PM) [2023/RJJP/010210] (9 of 9) [CRLAS-737/2023] furtherance of objectives as laid down in Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), as certain acts with SC/ST community were declared as an offence then such charge can be framed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next