Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K. Prakashan vs P.K. Surenderan on 10 October, 2007
24. Reliance by the accused on 'K. Parakashan
versus P. K.Surenderan', is misplaced, in so far as the factual
matrix in the said case was totally different. In that case, apart
from the fact that the cheques in question belonged to a series
which was got encashed much prior to the alleged date of
handing over of the cheque, there were numerous other
deficiencies in the case of the complainant, which led to the
acquittal of the accused. Hence, meaningful (and not
pedantically) reading of the case relied upon by the accused, is
totally distinguishable from the present case. It needs to be
outlined that no precedent either statute or a Euclid's theorem.
Every case is to be read Secumdum subjectum materiam i.e. in
the specific light of its own facts and circumstances and after
carefully discerning its ratio. It is well settled that judicial
precedent cannot be followed as a statute and has to be applied
New CC No. 6885/14
Unique case ID No. 4996342/16
PAVITRA DEVI VS ARUN KUMAR
with reference to the facts of the case involved in it. What is of
essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observations found
therein, nor what logically follows from the observations made in
it. It is to be remembered that a decision is only an authority for
what it actually decides. Any phrase of sentence used in the
judgment cannot be cherry - picked and used mechanically,
totally shorn out of its context.
Section 269 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Nutan Kumar And Ors vs Iind Additional District Judge & Ors on 27 September, 2002
''36. On issue no.02 framed vide
order dated 02.02.2006, suffice would it
be note as held in report published as
2002 (8) SCC 31, Nutan Kumar & Ors vs
Iind Additional District Judge & Ors.,
unless a statute specially provides that a
contract contrary to the provisions of the
statute would be void, the contract
would remain binding between the
parties and can be enforced between the
parties themselves. Consequences, if
any, other in law, would follow.
1