Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (3.47 seconds)
Arul Daniel vs Suganya on 4 May, 2022 cites

State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Sujit Kumar Rana on 20 January, 2004

33 As a sequitur, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sujit Kumar Rana, supra, that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable only against the proceedings of a Criminal Court, we also affirm the view in Pathmanathan, supra, that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable to challenge a proceeding under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 186 - S B Sinha - Full Document

P.Arun Prakash vs S.Sudhamary on 1 April, 2021

Later, in G. Jayakumar, supra, it was held that such a transfer was possible under Article 227 of the Constitution and not under Section 407 Cr.P.C. A diametrically opposite view was taken in Arun Prakash, supra, wherein, it was held that a D.V. Act proceeding which is essentially criminal in nature, cannot be transferred to the Family Court or any Civil Court under Article 227.
Madras High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 9 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Jaswantsinghji Fathehsinghji Thakore vs Kesuba Harisinh Dipsinhji on 15 April, 1954

31 Since we are agreeing with the opinion of the Bombay High Court in Jaswant Singhji (supra) that a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a criminal proceeding, we are required to answer a seminal doubt, viz., “if a pro­ ceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a criminal proceeding, then, how can a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be maintained?” The short answer to this question is that an order made by the Magistrate under Chapter IX, which envisages a right for maintenance and provides a remedy thereof, is nonetheless an order passed “under the Code” (See Sec 482 Cr.P.C). Consequently, an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is re­ visable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. or the proceeding itself can be challenged in an appropriate case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Whereas, an order passed granting one or more reliefs under the D.V. Act, is not an order passed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. It remains an order passed under the D.V. Act which is susceptible to an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 47/88 Crl.O.P. Sr.No.31852 of 2022 etc. batch appeal under Section 29 of the said Act. There is no appeal from an order under Chapter IX Cr.P.C, and such order can, nonetheless, be revised under Section 397 Cr.P.C, since it is an order made under the provisions of the Code.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Balan Nair vs Bhavani Amma Valsalamma And Ors. on 17 November, 1986

Inherent in the provisions of Ss.488, 489 and 490, which fall in Chapter XXXVI of the Code, is sufficient indication that the proceedings under S.488 of the Code are not regarded as proceedings in respect of an offence.” (emphasis supplied) 24 In Balan Nair v Bhavani Amma Valsalamma and others19, a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court (U.L.Bhat, K.T.Thomas and P.K.Shamsuddin, JJ.) reiterated the aforesaid position. Speaking for the Full Bench, Justice U.L.Bhat observed:
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 24 - K T Thomas - Full Document

V.B. D'Monte vs Bandra Borough Municipality on 11 April, 1950

The husband approached the High Court and sought transfer of the D.V. case to the Family Court to be decided along with the divorce case(s) by invoking Section 24 C.P.C. A learned single judge of the High Court ordered the transfer and the Family Court, Pune, passed a composite order disposing the D.V. case and the divorce case by framing separate issues. The question for consideration before the Bombay High Court was as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 17 - V Bose - Full Document

K.M. Mathew vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 19 November, 1991

batch 44 It is, therefore, clear that what is contemplated under the D.V. Act is the issuance of notice under Section 13 and not a summons under Section 61 of the Cr.P.C. The decision in Adalat Prasad, supra, concerned the correctness of the view taken by a two judge bench of the Supreme Court in K.M.Mathew v State of Kerala30, wherein, it was held that an order issuing process was merely an interim order which could be recalled/varied. It was held that once process was issued, the accused could appear before the Magistrate and plead that the process issued against him must be recalled, and that it was open to the Magistrate to reconsider the complaint and drop proceedings if the situation so warranted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 328 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1   2 Next