Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.51 seconds)Section 309 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
O.P.Sharma & Ors vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana on 9 May, 2011
the court and society, being a member of the legal
profession, this Court in O.P. Sharma v. High Court of
P&H [O.P. Sharma v. High Court of P&H, (2011) 6 SCC 86
: (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 218 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 821 : (2011) 2
SCC (L&S) 11] has observed that : (SCC p. 92, para 17)
'17. The role and status of lawyers at the beginning
of sovereign and democratic India is accounted as
of
extremely vital in deciding that the nation's
administration was to be governed by the rule of
law.'
The Bench emphasised the role of eminent lawyers in
rt
the framing of the Constitution. The emphasis was
also laid on the concept that lawyers are the officers of
the court in the administration of justice.
State Of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr on 28 July, 1982
"11. If really there was no concession, or a different stand
was taken, the only course open to the appellant was to
move the High Court in line with what has been said
in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak [(1982)
2 SCC 463: 1982 SCC (Cri) 478].
Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 3 December, 2002
In a recent
decision Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)
Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111: 2002 AIR SCW 4939] the view in the
said case was reiterated by observing that statements of
fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the
judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so
stated and no one can contradict such statements by
affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the
happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a
judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the
matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the
attention of the very Judges who have made the record.
That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:41 :::CIS
8
2025:HHC:38826
such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there.
It is not open to the appellant to contend before this
Court to the contrary."
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sh. Jasbir Sobti And Others vs Sh. Surender Singh on 25 July, 2008
11. It was submitted that the adjournment should have
been granted in the interest of justice. This submission cannot
be accepted. Delhi High Court held in Jasbir Sobti v. Surender
Singh, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 845, that adjournments cannot be
granted in the interest of justice. It was observed:
M/S Shiv Cotex vs Tirgun Auto Plast P.Ltd.& Ors on 30 August, 2011
In Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. [Shiv
Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., (2011) 9 SCC 678 :
Babu Badri Singh And Ors. vs Babu Ram Kishore Prasad Singh And Ors. on 14 February, 1958
8.2. Commenting on the delay in the justice delivery
system, although in respect of the criminal trial, Krishna
Iyer, J. in Babu Singh v. State of U.P. [Babu Singh v. State of
U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579: 1978 SCC (Cri) 133] has observed in
para 4 as under : (SCC p. 581)
"4. ... Our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers
from slow motion syndrome, which is lethal to "fair
trial", whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice
is a component of social justice since the community,
as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being
condignly and finally punished within a reasonable
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:41 :::CIS
13
2025:HHC:38826
time and the innocent being absolved from the
inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings."
Mahabir Prasan Singh vs M/S Jacks Aviation Private Ltd on 13 November, 1998
In Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash
Kapoor [Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor,
(2001) 1 SCC 118: 2001 SCC (Cri) 3: 2001 SCC (L&S) 152],
after referring to a passage from Mahabir Prasad
Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd. [Mahabir Prasad
Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 37], the
Court cautioned thus : (Ramon Services case [Ramon
Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor, (2001) 1 SCC 118: