Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2009
Likewise Pandurang's case (supra), the issue was that an
appeal against acquittal could only be heard by a Division Bench but in
that case a Single Judge decided the same and set aside the acquittal
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 03-11-2020 23:48:35 :::
CWP No.18466 of 2020 5
and convicted Pandurang and others who then went up to Supreme
Court and their Lordships held that the decision passed by the Single
Judge was a nullity. Again it is not a case where that decision was
challenged in a writ petition but was challenged before the Supreme
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University And Ors on 24 July, 2001
The next judgment which has been cited Dhurandhar
Prasad Singh's case (Supra) was where the Supreme Court while
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 03-11-2020 23:48:35 :::
CWP No.18466 of 2020 6
deciding an issue under Order 22 Rule 10 expounded on the true scope
of expressions "Void and Voidable". The same also does not help the
present petitioner.
Sarwan Kumar & Anr vs Madan Lal Aggarwal on 6 February, 2003
In Sarvan Kumar's case (supra), the issue before the
Supreme Court was whether a decree for ejectment passed by a Civil
Court qua a commercial tenancy in the State of Delhi before the
declaration of law of the Supreme Court in Gian Devi Anand Vs.
Jeevan Kumar (1985) 2 SCC 683 that such a tenancy is heritable is
executable, or the judgment-debtors can successfully object to the
execution of the decree on the ground that same was passed by a Civil
Court, lacking inherent jurisdiction and therefore non-executable. The
objection regarding executability was rejected by the Court and a
petition filed against that order before the Delhi High Court was also
dismissed and it was thereafter, that the matter was carried up to the
Supreme Court. Again this judgment cannot help the petitioner.
Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs State Of Maharashtra . on 7 August, 2020
None of these judgments hold that a decision of a Single
Judge in a petition for anticipatory bail can be brought into question by
way of a writ petition. Learned Senior counsel has further relied upon
the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.11018 of
2007 and CRM-M-40491 of 2007 decided on 14.11.2008 to argue that
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 03-11-2020 23:48:35 :::
CWP No.18466 of 2020 7
in that case an order passed by a Single Judge in CRM-M-40491 of
2007 was challenged by way of civil writ petition. We have gone
through that judgment and we find that the Division Bench had noticed
the issue of maintainability but ultimately proceeded with the petition
in view of the consent of the parties. Resultantly, even that case cannot
be used as a precedent.
Smt. Gian Devi Anand vs Jeeevan Kumar And Others on 1 May, 1985
In Sarvan Kumar's case (supra), the issue before the
Supreme Court was whether a decree for ejectment passed by a Civil
Court qua a commercial tenancy in the State of Delhi before the
declaration of law of the Supreme Court in Gian Devi Anand Vs.
Jeevan Kumar (1985) 2 SCC 683 that such a tenancy is heritable is
executable, or the judgment-debtors can successfully object to the
execution of the decree on the ground that same was passed by a Civil
Court, lacking inherent jurisdiction and therefore non-executable. The
objection regarding executability was rejected by the Court and a
petition filed against that order before the Delhi High Court was also
dismissed and it was thereafter, that the matter was carried up to the
Supreme Court. Again this judgment cannot help the petitioner.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shiv Dev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 August, 2018
In Pohla Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court set
aside a part of the order which had not been challenged before it. In
our considered opinion, the power of their lordships under Article 142
of the Constitution of India and their finding that a person who is
aggrieved of a decision can file a second petition for recall of its
decision on the ground that they were necessary parties and had not
been impleaded would not help the petitioner in the present case.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1