Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (3.33 seconds)
Jogendrasinhgji Vikaysinhji vs State Of Gujarat &Amp Ors on 6 July, 2015 cites

Moulvi Hamid Hassan Nomani vs Banwarilal Roy on 5 March, 1947

10. After so stating, the larger Bench referred to the decision in Hamid Hassan v. Banwarilal Roy14 wherein the Privy Council had observed that the original civil jurisdiction which the Supreme Court of Calcutta had possessed over certain classes of persons outside the territorial limits of that jurisdiction was a matter of original jurisdiction. Thereafter, the Court referred to certain High Court decisions and opined:-
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988

“It is well settled now that a judgment of court can never be challenged under Articles 14 or 21 and therefore the judgment of the court awarding the sentence of death is not open to challenge as violating Article 14 or Article 21 as has been laid down by this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and also in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak21 , the only jurisdiction which could be sought to be exercised by a prisoner for infringement of his rights can be to challenge the subsequent events after the final judicial verdict is pronounced and it is because of this that on the ground of long or inordinate delay a condemned prisoner could approach this Court and that is what has consistently been held by this Court. But it will not be open to this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 to go behind or to examine the final verdict reached by a competent court convicting and sentencing the condemned prisoner and even while considering the circumstances in order to reach a conclusion as to whether the inordinate delay coupled with subsequent circumstances could be held to be sufficient for coming to a conclusion that execution of the sentence of death will not be just and proper.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 1309 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1