Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 53 (0.65 seconds)

Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012

(2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] has also laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in the context of prayer for quashing of charge framed under Section 228CrPC is sought for as under : (Amit Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986], SCC pp. 482-83, para 27) "27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions, i.e., Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code, and the fine line of jurisdictional ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2025 21:24:29 :::CIS 12 distinction, it will now be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but inherently impossible to state such .
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 1303 - S Kumar - Full Document

Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019

17. On the position of law, the provisions referred to in Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, as also the enunciation of law as made by this Court, need no reiteration as there is no ambiguity whatsoever. In Basalingappav. Mudibasappa [Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 571] relied on by the learned ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2025 21:24:29 :::CIS 27 counsel for the respondent, though on facts the ultimate conclusion therein was against raising presumption, the facts and circumstances are entirely different as the transaction between the parties as claimed in the said .
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 2275 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next