Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.29 seconds)Section 143 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004
No.
2/2020) decided on April 16, 2021 has also categorically ruled
that the judgements of the court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and
Subramanium (supra) had interpreted law correctly and reiterated
that there is no inherent power of the trial courts to review or
recall or to reviews the order of summoning in the accused. The
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Court on its own motion vs.
State judgment delivered on 20.04.2022 has categorically ruled
that 'the Court of a Magistrate do not have the power to
discharge the accused upon his appearance in the court in a
summoned trial case based upon complaint in general and
particularly in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act, once
cognizance has already been taken and process under Section 204
issued.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 258 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
M/S. Rahul Builders vs M/S. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical & ... on 2 November, 2007
In this regard, reliance is placed upon the
case law titled as M/s Rahul Builders Vs. Arihant Fertilizers
2008(2) SCC 321, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that "unless a notice is served in conformity with proviso
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
In case titled Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag Vs. Mst. Kathiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353: (1987) 2 SCC
107, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following
principles for the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act:-
K.M. Mathew vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 19 November, 1991
The observation in the case of K.
M. Mathew (supra) that no specific provision of law is
required for recalling an erroneous order of issue of process
was held to be contrary to the scheme of the Code in Adalat
Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Others9. It was observed therein
that the order taking cognizance can only be subject matter of
a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code as subordinate
criminal courts have no inherent power. There is also no
power of review conferred on the Trial Courts by the Code.
Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004
The observation in the case of K.
M. Mathew (supra) that no specific provision of law is
required for recalling an erroneous order of issue of process
was held to be contrary to the scheme of the Code in Adalat
Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Others9. It was observed therein
that the order taking cognizance can only be subject matter of
a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code as subordinate
criminal courts have no inherent power. There is also no
power of review conferred on the Trial Courts by the Code.