Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.37 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 224 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Khudiram Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 November, 1974
(C) Observations of Honourable Justice P.N.BAGHVATHI in Khudiram Das
case(1) are notable in the filed of subjective satisfaction. His lordship held
that the following are to be verified.
Additional Secretary To The Government ... vs Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Anr on 20 December, 1990
5.17 In Additional Secy, Govt. of India Vs. Alka(1)
The Apex Court clarified that in the exercise of their discretionary
jurisdiction the High Court and the Supreme Court do not correct mere errors of
law or facts. Discretionary jurisdiction is not permitted as an alternative
remedy for relief. The Court does not, by exercising writ jurisdiction, permit
the machinery created by the statute to be bye passed. The Court does not
generally enter upon the determination of questions which demand an elaborate
examination of evidence.The Court does not interfere on the merits that the
determination of issues passed by the authority vested with statutory power
particularly when they are related to matters calling for expertise.
5.18.
The Superintendent, Central ... vs Ram Manohar Lohia on 21 January, 1960
(A) In Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs. Ram Manohar Lohia(1)
It is held that the public order is synonymous with public peace and
safety and tranquillity.
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State Of Bihar And Others on 7 September, 1965
(B) Hon'ble Justice.Hidaytullah, in
Ram Manohar Vs. State of Bihar (2) observed;
K. Thirupathi vs District Magistrate And District ... on 9 September, 2005
(I) The full bench of this Court in
K.Thirupathi Vs. District Magistrate, Thiruchirapalli,(1)
It is held that the strict insistence of the usage of word "imminent" is
not necessary and expressions like real possibilities, very likely or most
likely can be used by the detaining authority to reflect his caution with regard
to the immediate release of the detenu on bail.
T.V. Saravanan @ S.A.R.Prasana ... vs State Through Secretary And Another on 16 February, 2006
(i) In the above case, the detenu had moved an application for bail before
the Principal Sessions Court, on 17.11.2004 which was rejected and another
application was moved before the High Court which was withdrawn on 03.12.2004.