Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.27 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Section 14A in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
The Amending Act, 1897
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Thansingh Nathmal And Ors vs A. Mazid, Superintendent Of Taxes on 3 February, 1964
In the case of Thansingh Nathmal (supra), it has also been discussed
19 W.P. (Cr.) No. 371 of 2023
With
W.P. (Cr.) No. 327 of 2023
With
W.P. (Cr.) No. 393 of 2023
in paragraph 7, on which much reliance has been placed by the learned
counsel for respondent no.2, that the very amplitude of the jurisdiction
demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed
limitations and the Court finds that the same is not in dispute.
Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018
In Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew
K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41] after referring
to and/or considering the decision of this Court in Chhabil
Dass Agarwal [CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC
603] , it was observed and held in para 5 as under : (Mathew
K.C. Case [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3
SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41] , SCC p. 89)
"5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of
the parties. Normally this Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is loath
to interfere with an interim order passed in a pending
proceeding before the High Court, except in special
circumstances, to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of
the process of the court. In the present case, the facts
are not in dispute. The discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised
judiciously in the given facts of a case and in
accordance with law.
Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013
The normal rule is that a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not
to be entertained if alternate statutory remedies are
available, except in cases falling within the well-defined
9 W.P. (Cr.) No. 371 of 2023
With
W.P. (Cr.) No. 327 of 2023
With
W.P. (Cr.) No. 393 of 2023
exceptions as observed in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal
[CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603] , as
follows : (SCC p. 611, para 15)
'15.
Hitesh Verma vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 5 November, 2020
"1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 20-7-
2020 [Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC OnLine
Utt 356] whereby the petition filed by the appellant under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the
Code") for quashing the charge-sheet as well as the
summoning order dated 25-6-2020 was dismissed.