Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)
P.Palanivel vs Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2011 cites

Pasumai Irrigation Limited, A Company ... vs Mansi Finance (Chennai) Limited, Rep. ... on 13 March, 2003

4.Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that P.W.1 has preferred a private complaint without approaching the concerned police. Only on the basis of the complaint sent by the learned Magistrate, Paramathi Vellore, the case has been registered in Cr.No.233 of 2000 for the offence under Sections 193, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. As per the decision reported in 2003 (2) CTC 270 (M/S.Pasumai Irrigation Limited v. M/S.Mansi Finance (Chennai) Limited), a private complaint can be entertained only when complaint to police is either refused to be registered or after entertaining complaint, police has referred the case as mistake of law or fact, or undetectable case or case of civil nature. The Magistrate cannot usurp the jurisdiction of police by entertaining private complaint at the first instance without prior complaint to police.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988

"59. The Court should not place reliance upon a judgment without discussing how the factual situation fits in with a fact-situation of the decision on which reliance is placed, as it has to be ascertained by analysing all the material facts and the issues involved in the case and argued on both sides. A judgment may not be followed in a given case if it has some distinguishing features. A little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference to the precedential value of a decision. A judgment of the Court is not to be read as a statute, as it is to be remembered that judicial utterances have been made in setting of the facts of a particular case. One additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance upon a decision is not proper. (Vide: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38; Govt. of Karnataka & Ors. v. Gowramma & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 863; and State of Haryana & Anr. v. Dharam Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 340). 54 PER INCURIAM - Doctrine:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 817 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next