Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.23 seconds)Section 4 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
Section 7 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
9. The respondent No. 2 had issued a notice to the Principal of the School on 10-12-1993 and copies of the same were forwarded to the Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai : the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad : the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad and the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Aurangabad and as no action was forthcoming from any of these authorities, the complainant approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Aurangabad on 21-3-1994. On the challenge to the process issued by the learned Magistrate in the revision application, the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), rejected the plea that the process was erroneously issued or there was no case made out to issue the process.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Surendra Prasad Sinha on 20 April, 1992
5. On verification, the learned Magistrate issued process against the accused (present applicant Nos. 1 to 4), respondent Nos. 3 & 4 as well as Cashier. Some of the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed their reply. By a separate application at Exh. 49, they prayed for recalling the order of process and this was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide his order dt. 15-1-1996. A judgment of this Court in the case of Kishan & another v. Meghraj and another, 1981 Bom.C.R. 211 and another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Surendra, , were relied upon by the accused. The learned Magistrate held that the law laid down in both these cases was scrupulously followed by his learned predecessor while issuing the Order of Process for the offence alleged and there was no error warranting the recall of the process.