Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.35 seconds)
World Scrap Recycling Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Jatin Singhal Prop Of Singhal ... on 30 November, 2023 cites

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

..... It is now well­nigh 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 Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State 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 objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 70 - Cited by 603 - S M Ali - Full Document

Amar Nath And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 25 January, 2017

World Scrap Recycling Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jatin Singhal as " Amar Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.", {(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:­ "The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub­section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well­known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 131 - J Chauhan - Full Document

Girish Kumar Suneja vs Cbi on 13 July, 2017

The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of criminal revision petition have also been laid­down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation", {(2017) 14 SCC 809} and it was held that, "15. While the text of sub­section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub­section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
Supreme Court of India Cites 73 - Cited by 736 - M B Lokur - Full Document

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

21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind ­ an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1313 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Amar Nath And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 29 July, 1977

..... It is now well­nigh 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 Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State 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 objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 775 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 Next