Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing Chhotu Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 1987

Uttam S/O Shamlal Jaiswal vs The State Of Maharashtra & Others on 6 May, 1997

41. The decision cited by Shri Gursahani, in the case , in the matter of Chhotu Singh v. State of Maharashtra and others, pertains to the transfer or shifting of the shop of liquor from one village to another in accordance with the guidelines published in Government Circular dated 27th April, 1984. In this matter, there was no question of powers of the Government to issue Circulars nor was there any challenge to the Circular on that ground and hence the attempt on the part of the learned Counsel Shri Gursahani to derive certain support therefrom also fails.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - R G Deshpande - Full Document

4 vs . on 24 July, 2012

86. On this very issue in Chhotu Singh Vs. State of Rajstahn 1999 SCC (Cri) 461 the Supreme Court observed that the statement made by the appellants before the investigating officer is admissible U/s 27 of the Evidence Act only to the extent that it proves that he had buried the dead body in the pit knowing that the offence of murder was committed but does not in the absence of any other material conclusively prove that he committed the murder.
Delhi District Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yogini Bathuwel Parkhe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 28 September, 2021

In his rejoinder address, Mr. Brahme has referred to the unreported judgment dated September 24, 2021 of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar and others (Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021) as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in Param Bir Singh s/o. Hoshiyar ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2021 23:24:53 ::: 1966.20WP.odt 7 Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2021 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 631, to contend that alternative remedy can never be considered to be a factor to oust the jurisdiction of a writ court.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - D Datta - Full Document

Mandar Ajit Borkar vs The Commissioner Of Police on 23 January, 2012

"(s). The detaining authority has informed the Petitioner in the grounds supplied to him that he cannot be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board. Such appraisal is misleading and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra and ors. V/s. Zubair Haji Qasim as reported in (2008) 12 SCC 792. This misleading appraisal has affected the Petitioner's right to make effective representation before the Advisory Board."
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1