Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Nahar Singh vs The State on 24 September, 1951
(31) In Nahar Singh v. The State, . a Division Bench of that Court has opined that "the law is well settled that an order under section 145 can only be passed in favor of a party in exclusive possession of the property and no declaration of joint possession can be made under section 145 Cr P.C."
Section 21 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
R.H. Bhutani vs Miss Mani J. Desai & Ors on 23 April, 1968
(25) In R.H. Bhutani v. Miss Mani I. Desai and others, , the Supreme Court has observed that the satisfaction under subsection (1) of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is that of the Magistrate. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the sufficiency of the material for his satisfaction. But the discretion of the Magistrate has to be exercised in accordance with well recognized rules of law. The satisfaction can be both from the police report or from other information. It is not necessary that before proceedings under section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate must call for a police report. The words "other information" are wide enough to include an application by a private party and once a Magistrate has examined the appplicant on oath and is satisfied that his application discloses the existence of a dispute and the likelihood of a breach of peace there is no bar to his acting under section 145(1). The High Court should not go into the sufficiency of the material which has satisfied the Magistrate while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Gopi Nath Mehrotra vs Emperor on 2 May, 1944
(32) A similar view had been expressed in Gopi Nagh Singh v. Emperor through Surajpal Singh, A.I.R. 1948 Oudh 130.
1