Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Shyamlal Rajput vs Special Police Esthapna Lokayukt ... on 2 January, 2019 cites

Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam on 18 March, 2009

In fact, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam as reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153, even order under Section 311, Cr.P.C. is of interim nature. Besides this, from the tone and tenure of the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner is adopting delaying tactics for the reasons best known to him. There 5 Criminal Revision No.6223 of 2018 is no basis for promoting such delaying tactics as has been adopted by the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to substantiate and justify volley of applications shot by the petitioner. Having failed to make out any case for successive applications, which only reflects motive of the petitioner to delay the case by hook or crook, this Court would not like to be a party to such tactics, therefore, this petition is dismissed at the threshold. Parties to bear their own costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 437 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Assistant Collector Of Customs & Anr vs U.L.R. Malwani And Anr on 16 October, 1968

Even otherwise in the case of The Assistant Collector of the Customs, Bombay & another v. L.R. Melwani & another as reported in AIR 1970 SC 962, it has been held that whether a particular document should be summoned or not, is essentially in the discretion of the trial Court; except for very goods reasons, the High Court should not interfere with that discretion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 139 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1