Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
H C Asher vs Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co Ltd on 2 March, 2015 cites

Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004

Needless to say, if the trial court finds that no case is made out against petitioner, then the decision of the Apex Court's in Adalat Prasad Vs Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 will not stand in the way of trial court to drop the proceedings against petitioner and if trial court chooses to proceed against petitioner, then petitioner will have the remedy as available in the law. It is so said because dropping of proceedings at Notice stage cannot possibly be equated with recalling of summoning order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 900 - Full Document

Bhushan Kumar & Anr vs State(Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 April, 2012

In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Crl.M.C.No.1507/2013 Page 3 Crl.M.C.No.4597/2013 Bhushan Kumar & Krishan Kumar (supra,) as referred to hereinabove, inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not exercised and petitioner is relegated to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the hearing on the point of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and if it is so done, then trial court shall deal with the pleas raised herein by passing a speaking and reasoned order. At the stage of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., trial court is not expected to function like a post office and to mechanically frame Notice, but is rather bound by law to apply its mind to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 642 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1