Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.35 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2021
This point of law has been
crystallised by this Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State
of Gujarat in the following words: (SCC pp. 12021, para 18):
A.R. Radha Krishna vs Dasari Deepthi on 28 February, 2019
Appeal No. 1522 of 2014; K. Subramani vs K. Damodara
Naidu (2015) 1 SCC 99; A.R. Radha Krishna vs Dasari Deepthi (2019) 15
SCC 550; HMT Watches Ltd vs M.A. Abida & Anr (2015) 11 SCC 776 relied
upon by the accused are given in their own specific facts and circumstances. It
goes without saying that no judgment is an euclid's theorem, and every
judgment has to be considered secundum subjectum materiam i.e in the
specific light of its own facts and circumstances. So considered, the case law
does not advance the defence of the accused being distinguishable on facts.
Hmt Watches Ltd vs M.A. Abida & Anr on 19 March, 2015
Appeal No. 1522 of 2014; K. Subramani vs K. Damodara
Naidu (2015) 1 SCC 99; A.R. Radha Krishna vs Dasari Deepthi (2019) 15
SCC 550; HMT Watches Ltd vs M.A. Abida & Anr (2015) 11 SCC 776 relied
upon by the accused are given in their own specific facts and circumstances. It
goes without saying that no judgment is an euclid's theorem, and every
judgment has to be considered secundum subjectum materiam i.e in the
specific light of its own facts and circumstances. So considered, the case law
does not advance the defence of the accused being distinguishable on facts.