Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Jayant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2020
(f)The decisions of this Court in Muthu v District
Collector (2018 SCC Online Mad 13985), the order
passed in review dated 09.09.2019, the decision of the
Full Bench in S. Kumar v District Collector (2023) 3 MLJ
(Cri) 536 and that of the learned single judge Ramar v
The State (Cr R.C MD 470 of 2023) dated 11.10.2023, to
the extent that it is inconsistent with the decisions of the
Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014)
9 SCC 772, Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14
SCC 331and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670
and paragraph 38 of the decision inPradeep S. Wodeyar
v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, as discussed
above, do not lay down the correct law.”
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 430 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sanjay on 4 September, 2014
(f)The decisions of this Court in Muthu v District
Collector (2018 SCC Online Mad 13985), the order
passed in review dated 09.09.2019, the decision of the
Full Bench in S. Kumar v District Collector (2023) 3 MLJ
(Cri) 536 and that of the learned single judge Ramar v
The State (Cr R.C MD 470 of 2023) dated 11.10.2023, to
the extent that it is inconsistent with the decisions of the
Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014)
9 SCC 772, Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14
SCC 331and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670
and paragraph 38 of the decision inPradeep S. Wodeyar
v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, as discussed
above, do not lay down the correct law.”
Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2021
(f)The decisions of this Court in Muthu v District
Collector (2018 SCC Online Mad 13985), the order
passed in review dated 09.09.2019, the decision of the
Full Bench in S. Kumar v District Collector (2023) 3 MLJ
(Cri) 536 and that of the learned single judge Ramar v
The State (Cr R.C MD 470 of 2023) dated 11.10.2023, to
the extent that it is inconsistent with the decisions of the
Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014)
9 SCC 772, Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14
SCC 331and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670
and paragraph 38 of the decision inPradeep S. Wodeyar
v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, as discussed
above, do not lay down the correct law.”
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
P.Muthu vs The District Collector on 20 August, 2018
(f)The decisions of this Court in Muthu v District
Collector (2018 SCC Online Mad 13985), the order
passed in review dated 09.09.2019, the decision of the
Full Bench in S. Kumar v District Collector (2023) 3 MLJ
(Cri) 536 and that of the learned single judge Ramar v
The State (Cr R.C MD 470 of 2023) dated 11.10.2023, to
the extent that it is inconsistent with the decisions of the
Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014)
9 SCC 772, Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14
SCC 331and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670
and paragraph 38 of the decision inPradeep S. Wodeyar
v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, as discussed
above, do not lay down the correct law.”