Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.30 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 12 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jehan Singh vs Delhi Administration on 27 March, 1974
In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after
referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi
Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University
v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West
Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some
other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category
of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article
226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the
Court need to be recapitulated:-
Amar Nath And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 29 July, 1977
In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after
referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi
Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University
v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West
Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some
other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category
of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article
226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the
Court need to be recapitulated:-
Kurukshetra University And Anr. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 22 March, 1977
In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after
referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi
Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University
v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West
Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some
other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category
of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article
226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the
Court need to be recapitulated:-
State Of Bihar And Anr vs J.A.C. Saldanha And Ors on 13 November, 1979
In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after
referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi
Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University
v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West
Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some
other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category
of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article
226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the
Court need to be recapitulated:-
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors on 2 February, 1982
In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after
referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi
Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University
v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West
Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some
other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category
of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article
226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the
Court need to be recapitulated:-
Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976
In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after
referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi
Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University
v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West
Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some
other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category
of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article
226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the
Court need to be recapitulated:-