Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.60 seconds)
Ram Sahay Meena Kalky & Anr vs State & Anr on 16 November, 2023 cites

Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977

"5. The issue regarding filing of petition before the High Court after having availed first revision petition before the Court of Sessions has come up before the Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly. While laying that section 397(3) Cr.P.C. laid statutory bar of second revision petition, the courts have held that High Court did enjoy inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. as well to entertain petitions even in those cases. But, that power was to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, particularly, when the person approaching the High Court has already availed remedy of first revision in the Sessions Court. This was not that in every case the person aggrieved of the order of the first revision court would have the right to be heard by the High Court to assail the same order which was the subject matter of the revision before Sessions Court. It was all to depend not only on the facts and circumstances of each case, but as to whether the impugned order bring about a situation which is an abuse of process of court or there was serious miscarriage of justice or the mandatory provisions of law were not complied with. The power could also be exercised by this Court if there was an apparent mistake committed by the revisional court. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chander Aggarwal, AIR SC 87, Raj Kapoor Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1980 Cri.L.J. 202, Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr and Kailash Verma Vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and Anr (2005) 2 SCC 571."
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1313 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Kailash Verma vs Punjab State Civil Supplies ... on 18 January, 2005

"5. The issue regarding filing of petition before the High Court after having availed first revision petition before the Court of Sessions has come up before the Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly. While laying that section 397(3) Cr.P.C. laid statutory bar of second revision petition, the courts have held that High Court did enjoy inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. as well to entertain petitions even in those cases. But, that power was to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, particularly, when the person approaching the High Court has already availed remedy of first revision in the Sessions Court. This was not that in every case the person aggrieved of the order of the first revision court would have the right to be heard by the High Court to assail the same order which was the subject matter of the revision before Sessions Court. It was all to depend not only on the facts and circumstances of each case, but as to whether the impugned order bring about a situation which is an abuse of process of court or there was serious miscarriage of justice or the mandatory provisions of law were not complied with. The power could also be exercised by this Court if there was an apparent mistake committed by the revisional court. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chander Aggarwal, AIR SC 87, Raj Kapoor Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1980 Cri.L.J. 202, Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr and Kailash Verma Vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and Anr (2005) 2 SCC 571."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 105 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Shri Mohan Lal Meena vs Ms. Sheela Meena & Ors on 12 April, 2023

10. It was submitted that Mohan Lal Meena filed a civil suit in Gangapur, Rajasthan, for declaration of his marriage with respondent no.2 as null and void. It was further submitted that a transfer petition bearing no. 497/2009 was filed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the aforesaid civil suit was transferred from Gangapur, Rajasthan to the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi and was eventually registered as HMA no. 431/2010. It was submitted that an application was filed and the suit was transferred from the Family Court to the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rohini Courts, since the issue was civil in nature. The learned CRL.M.C. 4304/2014 and connected matters Signature Not Verified Page 9 of 26 Digitally Signed By:RANJU BHALLA Signing Date:17.11.2023 13:50:07 Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the aforesaid suit. An appeal against the said dismissal, i.e., RCA No. 126/2018, titled „Mohan Lal Meena v. Sheela Meena‟, is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, West, Delhi.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document
1   2 Next