Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)
Bhoop Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 March, 2018 cites

Amar Chand Agarwalla vs Shanti Bose And Another Etc on 22 December, 1972

"In Amur Chand Agrawal vs. Shanti Bose and another, AIR 1973 SC 799, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 160 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Nakula Sahu & Ors on 30 November, 1978

In State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu, AIR 1979, SC 663, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including Akalu Aheer vs. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973, SC 2145, held that the power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. The Court held that "judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system".
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 144 - J Singh - Full Document

Kaptan Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 24 April, 1997

In Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and another, AIR 1997 SC 2485 = II (1997) CCR 109 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments, particularly Chinnaswami vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 ; Mahendra Pratap vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968, SC 707; P.N. G. Raju vs. B.P. Appadu, AIR 1975, SC 1854 and Ayodhya vs. Ram Sumer Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1415 and held that revisional power can be exercised only when "there exists a manifest illegality in the order or there is a grave miscarriage of justice".
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 125 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

Mahendra Pratap Singh vs Sarju Singh & Anr on 20 November, 1967

In Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and another, AIR 1997 SC 2485 = II (1997) CCR 109 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments, particularly Chinnaswami vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 ; Mahendra Pratap vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968, SC 707; P.N. G. Raju vs. B.P. Appadu, AIR 1975, SC 1854 and Ayodhya vs. Ram Sumer Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1415 and held that revisional power can be exercised only when "there exists a manifest illegality in the order or there is a grave miscarriage of justice".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 373 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Kumar on 8 April, 2005

20. A similar question came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar, 2000 Crl.J. 4889, wherein the facts were that the husband was having an extra-marital relations and would beat his wife and was bent upon to turn her out of matrimonial house, the Court held that such fact would amount to wilful conduct on the part of husband and case would squarely fall under Section ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 23:27:47 :::HCHP 13 498-A. In such cases, it was not necessary to establish that such beatings were intended to secure fulfilment of demand for .
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 489 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1