Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)H.H. Brij Indar Singh vs Lala Kanshi Ram on 19 July, 1917
(2) 28 I.A. 11 at 13. (5) A.I.R. 1946 P.C. 100, 102.
(3) 48 I.A. 311 at 34. (6) AI.R. 1943 P.C. 106, 108
31
242
fettered when it was not, or that it had none, then the
superior Court must either remit the case or exercise the
discretion itself : Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram (1).
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Radhakrishna Ayyar vs Swaminatha Ayyar on 3 December, 1920
Radhakrishna Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar (3) and Radha Krishn
Das v. Rai Krishn Chand (4).
Section 205 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Bhagbati Dei vs Muralidhar Sahu on 3 February, 1943
If it is properly exercised on
well established and proper lines, then, as in all questions
where an exercise of discretion is involved, there would be
no interference except on very strong grounds: Swaminarayan
Jethalal v. Acharya Devendraprasadji (5) and Bhagbati Dei v.
Muralidhar Sahu (6). But if, on the face of the order, it
is apparent that the Court has misdirected itself and
considered that its discretion was
(1) (1940] F.C.R. 31. (4) 28 I.A. 182 at 183.
1