Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)Section 391 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors vs Uttam & Another on 11 February, 1999
11. Yet in another case K.K. Patel vs. State of Gujarat
(2000)6 SCC 195, while relying upon Rajendra Kumar
Sita Ram Pande's case supra, held that it is well neigh
settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is
interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code,
the sole test is not whether such order was passed
during the interim stage, the feasible test is whether
upholding the objections raised by a party, it would
result in culminating the proceedings if so any order
passed on such objection would not be merely
interlocutory in nature as envisaged under Section
397(2) of the Code.
K.K. Patel And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 12 May, 2000
11. Yet in another case K.K. Patel vs. State of Gujarat
(2000)6 SCC 195, while relying upon Rajendra Kumar
Sita Ram Pande's case supra, held that it is well neigh
settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is
interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code,
the sole test is not whether such order was passed
during the interim stage, the feasible test is whether
upholding the objections raised by a party, it would
result in culminating the proceedings if so any order
passed on such objection would not be merely
interlocutory in nature as envisaged under Section
397(2) of the Code.
Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam on 18 March, 2009
in Sethuraman vs Ratamanickam (2009) 5 SCC 153, that an
order refusing to call the documents and lead additional
evidence is interlocutory. It was observed: -
Mahmood Hasan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 7 January, 1997
Hasan v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5469 and held:
Tajinder Singh vs Anil Nayyar on 13 October, 2017
the complainant, and the accused could have examined his
father to disprove this assertion. It is undisputed that the
accused has not examined his father to disprove the statement
made by the complainant. The accused claimed that he had
of
not signed the cheque, but had not provided any satisfactory
explanation as to how the complainant came into possession
rt
of the cheque. He claimed that he had lost the cheque. But, he
had not made any complaint regarding the loss of the cheque
to the police or the bank. It was laid down by this Court in
Tajinder Singh v. Anil Nayyar, 2017 SCC OnLine HP 2145, that
when the complaint of loss of a cheque was made after one
year of the loss, the application for comparison cannot be
allowed. It was observed: