Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Ajay Barakoti & Another ...... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 15 March, 2019 cites

Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012

12. Resisting the aforesaid submissions it was canvassed by Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that High Court has judiciously and rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the present case. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously urged that the offences in the present case are not heinous offences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 53834 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & ... vs Chander Hass & Anr on 6 December, 2007

"21. Ordinarily, we would have agreed with Mr. B.B. Singh. The doctrine of judicial restraint which has been emphasised repeatedly by this Court e.g. in Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683 and Govt. of A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720, restricts the power of the Court and does not permit the Court to ordinarily encroach into the legislative or executive domain. As observed by this Court in the above decisions, there is a broad separation of powers in the Constitution and it would not be proper for one organ of the State to encroach into the domain of another organ."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 389 - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Smt. P. Laxmi Devi on 25 February, 2008

"21. Ordinarily, we would have agreed with Mr. B.B. Singh. The doctrine of judicial restraint which has been emphasised repeatedly by this Court e.g. in Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683 and Govt. of A.P. v. P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720, restricts the power of the Court and does not permit the Court to ordinarily encroach into the legislative or executive domain. As observed by this Court in the above decisions, there is a broad separation of powers in the Constitution and it would not be proper for one organ of the State to encroach into the domain of another organ."
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 725 - M Katju - Full Document

Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principle Secretary & Others on 25 August, 2014

14. Having carefully considered the singular facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the view taken in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) and several decisions of this Court delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on the attendant facts, continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of process of Court and an exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence to any of the parties."
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 935 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1