Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.83 seconds)
Sohanlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2020 cites

Sohanlal And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 October, 1981

During investigation statement of Makhanlal Soni, Nitesh, Anil, Neeraj, Gopal , Anil and Kamlesh have been recorded. It is cleared from the statement of witnesses, disputed house was name of the petitioner- accused. Petitioner-accused is elder brother of deceased and Makhan Lal. Disputed house was got in Criminal Revision No. 1433/2019 (Sohanlal Vs. State of M.P. 10 partition to the deceased but the disputed house was in the named of the petitioner-accused. Petitioner-accused was not ready to give that house to the deceased.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978

reported in (1990) 4 SCC 76, after considering the provisions of Sections 227 and 228, Cr.P.C., Court posed a question, whether at the stage of framing the charge, the trial court should marshal the materials on the record of the case as he would do on the conclusion of the trial? The Court held that at the stage of framing the charge inquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from such materials constitute the offence with which the accused could be charged. The Court may peruse the records for that limited purpose, but it is not required to marshal it with a view to decide the reliability thereof. The Court referred to earlier decisions in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affair, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274 and held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1736 - S M Ali - Full Document

Supdt. & Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs ... vs Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors on 23 August, 1979

reported in (1990) 4 SCC 76, after considering the provisions of Sections 227 and 228, Cr.P.C., Court posed a question, whether at the stage of framing the charge, the trial court should marshal the materials on the record of the case as he would do on the conclusion of the trial? The Court held that at the stage of framing the charge inquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from such materials constitute the offence with which the accused could be charged. The Court may peruse the records for that limited purpose, but it is not required to marshal it with a view to decide the reliability thereof. The Court referred to earlier decisions in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affair, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274 and held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 673 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977

reported in (1990) 4 SCC 76, after considering the provisions of Sections 227 and 228, Cr.P.C., Court posed a question, whether at the stage of framing the charge, the trial court should marshal the materials on the record of the case as he would do on the conclusion of the trial? The Court held that at the stage of framing the charge inquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from such materials constitute the offence with which the accused could be charged. The Court may peruse the records for that limited purpose, but it is not required to marshal it with a view to decide the reliability thereof. The Court referred to earlier decisions in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affair, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274 and held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1190 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2001

40. The Learned counsel also placed reliance on yet another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, in which a three-Judge Bench of this court had an occasion to deal with the case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like". Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 847 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 3 Next