Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)

M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors on 4 November, 1997

Learned counsel placed reliance on State of Maharashtra versus Sharad Chandra Vinayak Dongre and others, reported as AIR 1995 Supreme Court, 231, P.K.Choudhury versus Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF), reported as 2008 (2) Criminal Court Cases, 126 (S.C.), M/s Pepsi Foods Limited and another versus Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported as 1998 Supreme Court, 128, Prashant Goel versus State and another, reported as 2007 (1) Criminal Court Cases, 838 (Delhi), Gautam Saikia versus Diganta Sarmah, reported as 2009 (1), Civil Court Cases, 132 (Gauhati), Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala and others versus M/s Eastern Roadways Private Limited, reported as 2007 (3), Civil Court Cases, 203 (Karnataka), M/s Keciyo Coconut Oils Private Limited and others versus State of Kerala, reported as 2002 Cri.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 3106 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Prashant Goel vs State & Anr on 13 October, 2009

Learned counsel placed reliance on State of Maharashtra versus Sharad Chandra Vinayak Dongre and others, reported as AIR 1995 Supreme Court, 231, P.K.Choudhury versus Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF), reported as 2008 (2) Criminal Court Cases, 126 (S.C.), M/s Pepsi Foods Limited and another versus Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported as 1998 Supreme Court, 128, Prashant Goel versus State and another, reported as 2007 (1) Criminal Court Cases, 838 (Delhi), Gautam Saikia versus Diganta Sarmah, reported as 2009 (1), Civil Court Cases, 132 (Gauhati), Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala and others versus M/s Eastern Roadways Private Limited, reported as 2007 (3), Civil Court Cases, 203 (Karnataka), M/s Keciyo Coconut Oils Private Limited and others versus State of Kerala, reported as 2002 Cri.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - I Kaur - Full Document

Prakash Chandra Sharma vs Kaushal Kishore on 14 November, 1979

L. J., 1087, Parkash Chandra Sharma versus Kaushal Kishore, reported as 1980 Cri. L.J, 578, to support his submissions. Supporting the process issued on the respondents Complaint, the respondents learned counsel Sri Navneet 4 Dubey would say that there being no provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contemplating opportunity of hearing to an accused before considering the issuance of process, the petitioner was not required to be heard by the Court while considering the complainants plea for Condonation of delay in filing the Complaint and issuance of process thereon, and in this view of the matter, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, on being satisfied that the delay in filing the Complaint, was sufficiently explained by the complainant, cannot be faulted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 Next