Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors on 25 January, 2008
13.The point in issue is what was the view taken by this Court in passing the order in Crl.R.C.No.1436 of 2003. If a particular view has been expressed therein, then to depart from such view would amount to reviewing the same which was a course not open to this Court by virtue of bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the order in Crl.R.C.No.1436 of 2003 which has been extracted above clearly reflects the view that there was a prime facie case which required to be tried. As held by the Honourable Apex Court in Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain and others (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 537, on the facts of this case, this Court in considering the present petition would 'in substance and in reality' be exercising power of review.
M/S Indian Oil Corporation vs M/S Nepc India Ltd., & Ors on 20 July, 2006
14.Given the view taken by this Court, this Court would refrain from rendering any finding on the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent based on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and others (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 736 and would leave the exercise to be undertaken by the lower Court.
Section 362 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Virupakshayya Shankarayya vs Neelakanta Shivacharya Pattadadevaru on 21 March, 1995
8.It is submitted that the principle of res judicata also applied in criminal proceedings. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Virupakshayya Shankarayya v. Neelakanta Shivacharya Pattadadevaru AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2187 and more particularly to paragraph 8 and 9 of the said judgment which reads as follows: