Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)
Manisha Chawla vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 February, 2022 cites

Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977

10. As to the plea of Respondents that present revision petition cannot be instituted at the instance of Complainant, reliance can be placed on the latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Pandurangan etc. Vs. S.S.R. Velusamy RAVINDER Digitally signed by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.02.04 16:50:56 ____________________________________________________________________ +0530 CR No.60/2020 Manisha Chawla Vs. State and ors. Page 5 of 9 6 and Anr. reported in 2003 Cr.LJ 4964 wherein it is observed that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the revisional Court even at the instance of Complainant or an outsider. Hence the plea of Respondents is not tenable under law. Another objection of Respondents that the impugned order being an interlocutory and revision thus not maintainable, is equally untenable in view of priciples laid down in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 and Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. AIR 2021 SC 2351 (DOD on 07.05.2021 by Hon'ble Apex Court).
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1313 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Sethi And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 30 March, 1982

15. Full Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Vinod Kumar Sethi and others Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1982 Punjab 372 had observed that between the husband and the wife there is always a jointness of control and possession of the properties of the spouse within the matrimonial home and that it goes against the very concept of entrustment of his or her property by one spouse to the other.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 60 - Full Document
1   2 Next