Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.31 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Ganesh Patel vs Umakant Rajoria on 7 March, 2022
In the case of Ganesh Patel vs. Umakant
Rajoria supra, the Honorable Apex Court held that
application for recall of the order was maintainable
as it was an application seeking a procedural
review, and not a substantive review to which
Section 362 of the Code would be attracted. Thus,
the Honourable Apex Court held that the application
for recall is maintainable in case of procedural
review.
Hari Singh Mann vs Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors on 1 November, 2000
39. Learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor for
the State vehemently submitted that in view of
provisions contemplated under Section 362 of the
Code, only clerical and arithmetical mistakes can be
corrected and in support of his contentions, he
placed reliance on the decision in the case of Hari
Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and ors supra
.....27/-
Grindlays Bank Ltd vs Central Government Industrial ... on 12 December, 1980
34. The another decision in the case of
Grindlays Bank Limited vs. Central Government
Industrial Tribunal and ors supra is in the light of
legal provision under Order 47 and Section 114 of
the Civil Procedure Code. So, it would not helpful
to the applicant.
Section 4 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Dr.Mahipal Singh vs Cbi & Anr. on 21 May, 2012
In the said judgment, it is held that
in order to constitute an offence or organized
crime, it has to be established that accused is
involved in 'continuing unlawful activity' defined
in Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act that is more than
one chargesheets in respect of offence of nature
specified in Section 2(1)(d) have been filed against
him before competent court within preceding period
of ten years and the court has taken cognizance of
such cases - for invocation for offence of organised
crime ingredients constituting that offence must
exist on the date the crime is committed or
detected. Satisfying the requirements of offence
later on to bring the act within mischief of penal
provision is not permissible. In order to
constitute an offence or organized crime, it has to
be established that accused is involved in
'continuing unlawful activity' defined in Section
2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act that is more than one
chargesheets in respect of offence of nature
specified in Section 2(1)(d) have been filed against
him before competent court within preceding period
.....17/-
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Krishna Kumar Pandey on 6 December, 2019
In the case of New India Assurance Company
Limited vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey supra, as placed by
learned counsel for the applicant, issue raised was
whether in a revision under Section 397 of the Code,
arising out of conviction, the High Court would
have, even while affirming the conviction, taken
away the right of the employer to exercise
disciplinary control over an employee, on the basis
of the conviction by the criminal court. In
paragraph No.11 of the judgment, the Honourable Apex
Court dealt with the fact that the respondent
secured an order from the High Court, behind the
back of his employer that his conviction will not
have an impact upon the service career of the
respondent and held that the High Court did not have
power to pass such an order and, therefore, held
that if at all, the High Court could have invoked,
.....23/-
Ramadhar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2023
33. Learned counsel for the applicant further
placed on the decision in the case of Ramadhar Sahu
vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh supra wherein the
Honourable Apex Court held that the opinion of the
High Court, in the impugned order, is that in the
event the High Court granted bail to the appellant
without compliance of the conditions specified in
the earlier order of a Coordinate Bench, that would
constitute modification of the order and Section 362
of the Code prohibits such modification of a
judgment or final order. It is held that an order
.....24/-