Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.26 seconds)Section 91 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
M/S. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs State on 24 April, 2001
Rev. No. 855/18) Page No. 7 of 15
in this regard is placed upon the judgment in the case of "Skipper Beverages
Pvt. Ltd vs. State" 2001 (92) DLT 217.
Superintendent Of Police, C.B.I. And ... vs Tapan Kr. Singh on 10 April, 2003
Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. Vs. Tapan Kumar
Singh reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 1305.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
In support of its contentions and the grounds raised in the revision
petition, the revisionist has placed reliance upon the following judgments:
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426 in (paragraph 32).
Shri Mahavir Prashad Gupta & Anr. vs State Of National Capital Territory Of ... on 27 September, 2000
Mahavir Prashad Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of
Delhi reported in 2000 Crl.L.J.
Rashmi Kumar Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada reported in
1997 SCC (Cri) 415.
Smt. Rashmi Kumar vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada on 18 December, 1996
Mahavir Prashad Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of
Delhi reported in 2000 Crl.L.J.
Rashmi Kumar Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada reported in
1997 SCC (Cri) 415.
Shri A. C. Aggarwal Sub-Divisional ... vs Mst. Ram Kali, Etc on 16 August, 1967
A.C. Aggarwal SDM & Anr. Vs. Mst. Ram Kali Etc,
reported in 1968 Crl.L.J82.
Young Indian vs Subramanian Swamy & Anr on 12 July, 2016
4. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had an opportunity to deal with
the scope and applicability of the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C. in the case
of Young Indian vs Subramanian Swamy & Anr. along with other petitions
(Crl. M.C. 671/16, 672/16, 1317/16, 1319/16 & 1321/16) decided on
12.07.2016 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed and I quote as under:
Ashok Chawla vs Ram Chander Garvan, Inspector Cbi on 28 February, 2011
15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
vehemently argued that the orders passed in the
present case do not reflect any necessity or
desirability. On this point, judgment in the case of
Ashok Chawla v. Ram Chander Garvan, Inspector
CBI MANU/DE/1243/2011 has been referred in
which it was observed that Section 91 Cr.P.C.
provides that whenever any Court or any officer
in charge of a police station considers that the
production of any document or other thing is
necessary or desirable for the purposes of any
investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding
under this Code by or before such Court or
officer, such Court may issue a summons or such
officer a written order, requiring the person in
whose possession or power such documents are
believed to be to attend and produce the same.