Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (1.33 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
However, K. Shyam Kumar (supra) and PRP Exports
(supra) have been considered in 63 Moons Technologies
Ltd. v. Union of India23 where it has been held in
paragraph 102 by a coordinate Bench that there is no
broad proposition that the law laid down in Mohinder
Singh Gill (supra) will not apply where larger public
interest is involved.
Shanker vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 1975
In Shankar v State of UP (1975) 3 SCC 851, the
Supreme Court held that the accused, in that case, had
won over the witnesses, in the sense that the witnesses
were not prepared to give evidence in the case for fear of
their lives or otherwise. It is only, therefore, where the
witness is unprepared to tender evidence or to support
the case of the party who summons him into the witness
box because of some overt or covert act committed by the
opposite party, by threat, inducement or the like that the
witness can be said to have been won over.
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
21. While arriving at this finding, we have kept in mind
the limited scope of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. We are not sitting in appeal
over the judgment of the Tribunal. It is not permissible
for us, therefore, to overturn the judgment of the
Tribunal merely on the ground that another possible, or
even more appropriate, inference can be drawn, from the
facts, than that drawn by the Tribunal. Our jurisdiction,
over the Tribunal, is that of certiorari. The limits of
certiorari jurisdiction stand classically delineated in the
following passage, from Syed Yakoob v K.S.
Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477:
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And ... on 6 September, 2018
24. Though Ms. Bandhopadhyaya did not argue cause (a)
of Rule 12, we deem it necessary to pen a word in that
regard, as the said clause was invoked before the
Tribunal, and the bulk of the impugned judgment devotes
itself to the applicability of the said clause. Clause (a) of
Rule 12 envisages acquittal of the charged police officer
on technical grounds as one of the circumstances in
which disciplinary proceedings against her, or him, could
sustain, even if based on the same charges. On this
aspect, the legal position is no longer res integra. This
Court has, recently, examined the position in this regard
in its judgment in Delhi Police v Krishan Kumar 2024
SCC OnLine Del 8862, in which, after noting the earlier
decisions on the point in George N.S. v Commissioner of
Police 183 (2011) DLT 226, Ex Ct. (CRPF) Prem Kumar
KSHITIJ KSHITIJ SAXENA
2026.02.11
SAXENA 16:57:31+05'30'
15
Item No. 05/ C-II O.A. No. 3235/2022
Singh v UOI 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7563 and Additional
Commissioner of Police Security v Dinesh Kumar 2023
SCC OnLine Del 2189, we have held thus: