Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)

State Of A.P vs Bajjoori Kanthaiah & Anr on 20 October, 2008

10. Apex Court also held that power is to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. It has also laid down the parameters and guidelines in cases titled as "K.L.E Society & ors v. Siddalingesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1993; A.P Vs Bojjoori Kanthaiah reported as 2008 AIR SCW 7860 and Reshma Bano Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1998".
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 85 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Reshma Bano vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 3 March, 2008

10. Apex Court also held that power is to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. It has also laid down the parameters and guidelines in cases titled as "K.L.E Society & ors v. Siddalingesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1993; A.P Vs Bojjoori Kanthaiah reported as 2008 AIR SCW 7860 and Reshma Bano Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1998".
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 51 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Murad Ali Khan, Farukh Salauddin & ... on 10 October, 1988

In State of Bihar vs Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC 655 this Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and has given the working that in exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 636 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2011

5. Learned senior counsel further submits that the properties, as shown accumulated, are from the very lawful business as the petitioner is a contractor and paid income tax and other related taxes to the Government. He further submits that the petitioner is not in any way involved in the commission of offences as detailed out in the impugned FIR. Learned senior counsel further submits that Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act making reference to criminal misconduct is not at all made out from the contents of the FIR. Learned senior counsel has while reiterating the submissions referred to and relied upon the Judgment titled Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar vs. State of Punjab and Anr., reported as 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 405.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - G S Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next