Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 82 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 April, 1977

Assistant Collector Of Central Excise ... vs V. Krishnamurthy And Ors. on 30 April, 1983

54. Now bearing in mind the principles laid down in all the above cited cases, when the question involved in this case is examined, we are of the view that the Customs Officer and the officer under the Gold (Control) Act, is not empowered to make investigation in the Strict legal sense of the term as used in section 377(2), Criminal Procedure Code, for the following reasons :
Madras High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 5 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Praveen Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 November, 2019

5. Section 401 expressly preserves the power of the High Court, by itself, to call for the records without the intervention of another agency and had kept alive the ancient exercise of power when something extraordinary comes to the knowledge of the High Court." (Emphasis supplied) Once again the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCC 25, clarified the law in respect of High Court's suo motu Revisional powers. The relevant extract of the judgment is quoted thus:
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 18 - K N Bajpayee - Full Document

Narayani Krishnan vs The Union Of India on 11 January, 2021

"25. Our attention is drawn to a disquieting feature in the procedure adopted by the learned single Judge (G. N. Vaidya, J.) in disposing of the appeal. The learned Judge ignored the decision of another single Judge of the same Court (J. M. Gandhi, J.) who had earlier held in a similar case that the appeal by the State was not competent under Section 377(1) Cr.P.C. It is true that the decision is pending before this Court in appeal by special leave. That, however, cannot be sufficient reason for the learned Judge to ignore it and observe that it is "unnecessary to keep back this matter till the Supreme Court decides the matter". When there was a decision of a co-ordinate court, it was open to the learned Judge to differ from it but in that case the only judicial alternative was to refer it to a larger bench and not to dispose of the appeal by taking a contrary view. Judicial discipline as well as decorum should suggest that as the only course. "
Kerala High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Nagarajan vs State on 29 November, 2021

17. With regard to the powers of the High Court to exercise suo motu revision, the learned Amicus Curiae, by relying upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nadir Khan vs. the State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1976 AIR 2205, (ii) Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1977 AIR 1177, submitted that the High Court, while exercising its power under Section 374 Cr.P.C., can also exercise the revisional powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C and that apart, under Section 399(i) Cr.P.C. can exercise the power of revision on its own. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/29 Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - B Pugalendhi - Full Document

Nagarajan vs State on 29 November, 2021

17. With regard to the powers of the High Court to exercise suo motu revision, the learned Amicus Curiae, by relying upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nadir Khan vs. the State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1976 AIR 2205, (ii) Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1977 AIR 1177, submitted that the High Court, while exercising its power under Section 374 Cr.P.C., can also exercise the revisional powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C and that apart, under Section 399(i) Cr.P.C. can exercise the power of revision on its own. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/29 Crl.A.(MD)No.137 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.248 of 2015
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - B Pugalendhi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next