Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.34 seconds)
Sh. Satya Pal Gupta vs State on 9 December, 2021 cites

V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I on 7 December, 1979

"It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V. C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objections raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated.Hence, as per the said standard,the order was revisable "
Supreme Court of India Cites 70 - Cited by 603 - S M Ali - Full Document

Girish Kumar Suneja vs Cbi on 13 July, 2017

In the case of Girish Kumar Suneja vs CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the provisions under Section 397(2) CrPC. 16B. In a previous decision of Coal Block Allocation cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed inter alia that all Coal Block Allocation cases pending in different courts of Delhi shall stand transferred to the Special Judge and any prayer for stay of trial of those cases can be made only before the Supreme Court and no other court shall entertain the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 73 - Cited by 736 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker vs State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 1967

and held that applying this test, if the appellant succeeds in his p lea and order of the Court of Sessions is reversed, the criminal proceedings as initiated against him cannot go on, though if he loses on merits, the proceedings will go on. Applying the test of Kuppuswami's case (supra) such an order will not be a final order but applying the test of Mohan Lal's case (supra), it would be a final CR No. 54/2021 Satya Pal Gupta vs. State CR no. 75/2021 Vinod Kumar Bindal vs. State CR no. 76/2021 S.P. Gupta vs. State CR no. 77/2021 Vipul Gupta vs. State page 24 of 44 pages order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court approved of the latter p recedent and held that the order impugned in that case did not fall under the bar stipulated by Section 397(2) CrPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 141 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Dharambir Khattar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 May, 2009

17B. In the said case, after investigation, chargesheet was filed for certain offences under IPC as well as under the Prevention of Corruption Act at the instance of Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the appellant and some MCD officials alleging wrongful loss caused to the MCD by use of fake invoices of oil companies qua transportation of bitumen for use in "Dense Carpeting Works" of roads in Delhi during the year 1997 and 1998. The trial court framed charges, against which the accused persons filed Criminal Revision petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The said revision petition was converted into a Writ Petition and was referred to the Hon'ble Division Bench for deciding as to whether an order on charge is an interlocutory order which can be assailed under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. While framing the said question, the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Delhi High Court observed that on the issue in question there were contrary views expressed by the two Hon'ble Single Judges of the Court. The first view taken in the case of Dharambir Khatter vs CBI, 159 (2009) DLT 636 was that the order framing charge is an interlocutory order, so the same is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction vide Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 110 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam on 18 March, 2009

6.4 Learned prosecutor placed reliance on the judgments in cases of T.K.Lathika vs Karsandas Jamnadas, MANU/SC/0535/1999; SEBI vs Mangalore Stock Exchange, MANU/SC/2862/2005; Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153; Shyamlal Rajput vs Vishesh Police Sthapna, 2019 SCC Online MP 977; Hemraj Nama vs Goyal General Store, Crl.Rev.283/2013 of Rajasthan High Court; State of Orissa vs Debendranath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568; Gulshan Kumar Ahuja vs Veena Sharma, MANU/DE/1079/2003; Neelam Mahajan vs State, MANU/DE/ 0871/2018; Girish Kumar Suneja vs CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809; and Jaya Suresh Gangar vs the State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/0961/2018.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 437 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Shyamlal Rajput vs Special Police Esthapna Lokayukt ... on 2 January, 2019

6.4 Learned prosecutor placed reliance on the judgments in cases of T.K.Lathika vs Karsandas Jamnadas, MANU/SC/0535/1999; SEBI vs Mangalore Stock Exchange, MANU/SC/2862/2005; Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153; Shyamlal Rajput vs Vishesh Police Sthapna, 2019 SCC Online MP 977; Hemraj Nama vs Goyal General Store, Crl.Rev.283/2013 of Rajasthan High Court; State of Orissa vs Debendranath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568; Gulshan Kumar Ahuja vs Veena Sharma, MANU/DE/1079/2003; Neelam Mahajan vs State, MANU/DE/ 0871/2018; Girish Kumar Suneja vs CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809; and Jaya Suresh Gangar vs the State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/0961/2018.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1