Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)

Amar Nath And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 29 July, 1977

2025.09.12 17:36:01 +0530 is duly applicable to the order passed u/s 143A of The Act as the order dated 02.12.2024, if reversed would have the effect of terminating the proceedings (qua interim compensation) u/s 143A of The Act. Hence, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, this court is of the view that the order passed u/s 143A of The Act is not an interlocutory order and revision petition against such an order is maintainable. Accordingly, the present revision petitions are held to be maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 775 - S M Ali - Full Document

Girish Kumar Suneja vs Cbi on 13 July, 2017

8. The Apex Court in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja vs CBI, AIR 2017 SC 3620, while dealing with interlocutory orders observed that there are three categories of orders that a court can pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. It further observed that revision jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of a final order and qua an intermediate order. The Apex Court explained that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed it has the effect M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 5 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 73 - Cited by 736 - M B Lokur - Full Document

1. M S Jsb Cargo And Freight Forwarder ... vs 1. State & Anr. on 20 December, 2021

13. The object of NI Act (Amendment) Act, 2018 (whereby section 143A was inserted into The Act) was to provide relief to genuine complainants during the pendency of the cheque dishonour case, so that they are not left waiting for years on account of undue delays and dilatory tactics of the accused (See M/s. JSB Cargo & Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State & Anr., 2022 (296) DLT 250).
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 37 - A Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 Next