Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Ningombam Damu Singh vs Khaidem Mangoljao Singh And Ors. on 22 December, 1955 cites

P.D. Shamdasani vs Central Bank Of India Ltd on 21 December, 1951

Similarly, in 'Tilak Bam v. Bhagga Singh' AIR 1915 Oudh 203(L), it was held that the High Court has power under Section 439, Criminal P. C., to revise an order of acquittal, taut in practice that power should not ordinarily be exercised because an appeal can always be instituted by the Local Government, vide also - 'P. D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd. (No. 1)' AIR 1944 Bom 107(FB)(M); - 'U. Min v. Maung Taik' AIR 1931 Rang 04(N); - 'Bakshi Sita Ram v. Lachhmi Chand' ; - 'Mast Ram v. Basant Ram' AIR 1955 Him-P. 24(P); and - 'Hamir Singh Sadhu Singh v. Mt. Gurdial Kaur Hamir Singh' AIR 1955 NUC (Pepsu) 1875(Q).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 47 - M P Sastri - Full Document

Ram Gopal vs Madan Lal on 29 August, 1949

Similarly, in 'Ram Gopal v. Madan Lal , it was held that the power to interfere in revision with an order of acquittal is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the Judge has made an obvious mistake which has resulted in a failure of Justice and where the case was tried in the regular way and the order of acquittal was passed upon a consideration of all the material evidence on the record, no interference could be made on the ground that the conclusion arrived at was not correct. Before the High Court is called upon to invoke its revisional jurisdiction, the applicant must satisfy the Court that some salient features of the case have been overlooked by the Court or that judgment is otherwise perverse or injust.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bakshi Sita Ram vs Lachhmi Chand And Anr. on 1 July, 1953

Similarly, in 'Tilak Bam v. Bhagga Singh' AIR 1915 Oudh 203(L), it was held that the High Court has power under Section 439, Criminal P. C., to revise an order of acquittal, taut in practice that power should not ordinarily be exercised because an appeal can always be instituted by the Local Government, vide also - 'P. D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd. (No. 1)' AIR 1944 Bom 107(FB)(M); - 'U. Min v. Maung Taik' AIR 1931 Rang 04(N); - 'Bakshi Sita Ram v. Lachhmi Chand' ; - 'Mast Ram v. Basant Ram' AIR 1955 Him-P. 24(P); and - 'Hamir Singh Sadhu Singh v. Mt. Gurdial Kaur Hamir Singh' AIR 1955 NUC (Pepsu) 1875(Q).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mast Ram vs Basant Ram on 20 August, 1954

Similarly, in 'Tilak Bam v. Bhagga Singh' AIR 1915 Oudh 203(L), it was held that the High Court has power under Section 439, Criminal P. C., to revise an order of acquittal, taut in practice that power should not ordinarily be exercised because an appeal can always be instituted by the Local Government, vide also - 'P. D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd. (No. 1)' AIR 1944 Bom 107(FB)(M); - 'U. Min v. Maung Taik' AIR 1931 Rang 04(N); - 'Bakshi Sita Ram v. Lachhmi Chand' ; - 'Mast Ram v. Basant Ram' AIR 1955 Him-P. 24(P); and - 'Hamir Singh Sadhu Singh v. Mt. Gurdial Kaur Hamir Singh' AIR 1955 NUC (Pepsu) 1875(Q).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1