Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Section 320 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
7. It is very pertinent to extract the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, which has rendered a finding in respect of the core issue
in question, by holding as under:
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003
8. Arguments were advanced across the bar insofar as the precedential
propriety relating to the Gian Singh's judgment and the binding nature of
earlier judgments predating the three Judges' Bench decision in Gian Singh's
case. This issue has already been settled by the subsequent two Judges' Bench
decisions in Narinder Singh and Manish, to the effect that the judgments
rendered in cases B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil
Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677] and Gian Singh are not mutually
incompatible inter se and there is nothing contradictory between these
judgments.
Nikhil Merchant vs C.B.I. & Anr on 20 August, 2008
8. Arguments were advanced across the bar insofar as the precedential
propriety relating to the Gian Singh's judgment and the binding nature of
earlier judgments predating the three Judges' Bench decision in Gian Singh's
case. This issue has already been settled by the subsequent two Judges' Bench
decisions in Narinder Singh and Manish, to the effect that the judgments
rendered in cases B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil
Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677] and Gian Singh are not mutually
incompatible inter se and there is nothing contradictory between these
judgments.
1