Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)
M/S Bptp Ltd vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 January, 2016 cites

Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 19 March, 2015

MC no.1952/2009; 2)Shri Shubakaran Luharuka v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi); 3)Dr. Zubair Ul Abidin v. State (NCT of Delhi); and 4)Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. v. State of UP as referred in the preceding paras . Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. Parties are directed to appear before ld. Trial court on 30.01.2016. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with a copy of the order. Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 1448 - D Misra - Full Document

M/S Jk International vs State, Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Others on 23 February, 2001

"13. Whenever a revision is filed either before the Sessions Court or this Court, it is not necessary to give notice to accused for affording him an opportunity of being heard, irrespective of the fact whether the order is prejudicial to him or not. For example, when a complaint is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution due to non appearance of complainant and not taking any steps by filing process fee etc. u/s 204(4), in that eventuality, Section 401(2) would not be applicable and no notice is required to be issued as the order dismissing the complaint for default or non-prosecution does not touch upon the factual or legal merits of the 11 complaint. The said order is a reflection on or about the conduct of the complainant in the proceeding before the Court and the opinion formed by the Court about the said conduct. Such order, if they do not reflect and take into consideration the merits of the case, when challenged in revision, does not require notice to opposite side as held in J.K. International vs. State, 96(2002) DLT 795 and reiterated in Hindustan Domestic Oil & Gas Co.(Bombay) Ltd & Ors. vs. State & Anr., 2012(4) JCC 2310.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 138 - Full Document

Hindustan Domestic Oil & Gas Co. ... vs State & Anr. on 3 August, 2012

"13. Whenever a revision is filed either before the Sessions Court or this Court, it is not necessary to give notice to accused for affording him an opportunity of being heard, irrespective of the fact whether the order is prejudicial to him or not. For example, when a complaint is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution due to non appearance of complainant and not taking any steps by filing process fee etc. u/s 204(4), in that eventuality, Section 401(2) would not be applicable and no notice is required to be issued as the order dismissing the complaint for default or non-prosecution does not touch upon the factual or legal merits of the 11 complaint. The said order is a reflection on or about the conduct of the complainant in the proceeding before the Court and the opinion formed by the Court about the said conduct. Such order, if they do not reflect and take into consideration the merits of the case, when challenged in revision, does not require notice to opposite side as held in J.K. International vs. State, 96(2002) DLT 795 and reiterated in Hindustan Domestic Oil & Gas Co.(Bombay) Ltd & Ors. vs. State & Anr., 2012(4) JCC 2310.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 71 - S Khanna - Full Document

Prabha Mathur & Anr vs Pramod Aggarwal & Ors on 26 September, 2008

14. Further in Prabha Mathur & Anr. Vs. Pramod Aggarwal and Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 469, it was observed following the decision in Chander Deo Singh (supra) that the accused has no locus standi at the stage of investigation and he cannot insist for a hearing before process is issued against him. It was emphasised that "it is equally correct that if a person has no locus standi or right of hearing, such right does not accrue in his favour by an indirect process".
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 20 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 Next