Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Section 497 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ramu Alias Ram Kumar And Others vs Jagannath on 4 February, 1992
In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath
AIR 1994 SC 26 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
Pathumma & Anr vs Muhammad on 17 April, 1986
In Pathumma and another vs. Muhammad, AIR 1986,
SC 1436, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that High Court
"committed an error in making a re-assessment of the
evidence" as in its revisional jurisdiction it was "not justified
in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate
on a question of fact".
Bansi Lal & Ors vs Laxman Singh on 15 July, 1986
In Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh, AIR 1986 SC
1721, the legal position regarding scope of revisional
jurisdiction was summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the following terms:
State Of Karnataka vs Appa Balu Ingale And Others on 1 December, 1992
In State of Karnataka vs. Appu Balu, AIR 1993, SC
1126 = II (1992) CCR 458 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that in exercise of the revisional powers, it is not
permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence.
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".
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".
State Of Kerala, Managing Director, ... vs Puttumana Illath Jathavedan ... on 11 February, 1999
In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan
Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as under:
U.Suvetha vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009
U. Suvetha vs. State (2009) 6 SCC 757, Manju Ram Kalita vs.
State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330). However, where it is proved
that the husband in order to have second marriage or have an
extra-marital relations, gives beatings to his wife and is bent
upon to turn her out of the matrimonial house, the case will
squarely fall within the ambit of Section 498-A and it is
absolutely not necessary to establish that such beatings were
intended to secure the fulfilment of any demand for property or
valuable security.