Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.22 seconds)Prema Veeraraghavan vs State By The Inspector Of Police, K-10 ... on 22 January, 2002
(25) In R.K. Jaiswal (supra), a learned Judge of the
Allahabad High Court has simply observed : "To me,
it does not appear to be so. The order finally
disposed of the application for custody of the truck."
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs The Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 18 September, 2017
(21) Obviously the conclusion arrived at by the
learned Judge is against the very letter and spirit of
Section 451 inasmuch as there is absolutely
nothing therein to warrant an inference that rights
of the concerned parties are to be at all adjudicated.
As stated by me above, that stage is reached only
after the conclusion of the trial as envisaged in
Section 452 which deals with the disposal, at the
conclusion of the inquiry or trial, of any property or
document produced before it or in its custody etc. At
that stage the Court has to determine how the
property is to be disposed of and it has, inter alia, to
consider the competing claims of the rival claimants
to be entitled to possession thereof. In other words,
the Court has to decide only the right to possession
of the property and not the ownership of the
property. Hence, there is an obvious fallacy in the
reasoning that an order under Section 451 purports
to decide finally any of the rights of the parties and
as such the aggrieved party has a right to challenge
the same in revision. On a parity of reasoning I am
unable to subscribe to the following observations of
a learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh in Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra): "The order in
question substantially affects the rights of the
parties. If so, it cannot be considered to be an
interlocutory order."
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 29 in The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Vikram vs Y.Fogullah Shariff on 11 June, 2015
5. Vikram vs Y.Fogullah Shariff, Criminal Revision Case No.
1408 of 2013 and M.P.No. 1 of 2013, decided on
11.06.2015 (Madras High Court).
Section 38 in The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Shree Bajrang Jute Mills Ltd vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 February, 1964
That Ld. Trial Court has erred in overlooking the legal
system of hierarchy of laws and moreover, Kelsen's (The
pure Theory of law) discussed by this court in the case of
"Bajrang Vs. State".
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I on 7 December, 1979
(18) In V.Parakashan (supra), yet another learned
Judge of the same High Court has dealt with the
matter in a very lucid manner. Says he : "The
maximum duration of the arrangement is only till
conclusion of "the enquiry or trial. It follows that
the arrangement is only temporary and the main
object is to protect or preserve the property pending
trial.