Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.45 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 362 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Moti Lal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 1993
45. Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section
362 Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even
the High Court in exercise of its inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to
alter/review the same. (See: Moti Lal v. State of M.P., AIR
1994 SC 1544; Hari Singh Mann (supra); and State of
Kerala vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair).
State Of Kerala vs M. M. Manikantan Nair on 25 April, 2001
45. Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section
362 Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even
the High Court in exercise of its inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to
alter/review the same. (See: Moti Lal v. State of M.P., AIR
1994 SC 1544; Hari Singh Mann (supra); and State of
Kerala vs. M.M. Manikantan Nair).
Chitawan And Ors. vs Mahboob Ilahi on 18 December, 1968
46. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction
or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the
order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of
being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was
obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really
amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers
can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in
such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the
provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not operate. In such
eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi
alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is
different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment.
However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish
that it was not at fault. (Vide: Chitawan & Ors. v. Mahboob
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2023 20:40:45 :::CIS
10
Ilahi, Deepak Thanwardas Balwani v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. Swarth Mahto An&r. v. Dharmdeo
Narain Singh, Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri v. S.S.
.
Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri vs S.S. Satyanarayan on 18 September, 1980
46. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction
or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the
order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of
being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was
obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really
amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers
can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in
such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the
provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not operate. In such
eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi
alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is
different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment.
However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish
that it was not at fault. (Vide: Chitawan & Ors. v. Mahboob
::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2023 20:40:45 :::CIS
10
Ilahi, Deepak Thanwardas Balwani v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. Swarth Mahto An&r. v. Dharmdeo
Narain Singh, Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri v. S.S.
.