Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Jagir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 April, 2025 cites

(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002

12. The said view has been consistently followed in the following cases; (1) Anil Kumar Haritwal & Anr. vs. Alka Gupta & Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 366]; (2) B.C. Seshadri vs. B.N. Suryanarayana Rao [2004 (11) SCC 510] decided by a three Judge Bench; (3) G. Sivarajan vs. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. [(2004 11 SCC 400]; (4) Kishore Kumar vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. [(2004 13 SCC 494]; (5) Sailesh Shyam Parsekar vs. Baban [(2005 (4) SCC 162]; (6) K. Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 54]; (7) K.J.B.L. Rama Reddy vs. Annapurna Seeds & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 632]; (8) Sayeed Ishaque Menon vs. Ansari Naseer Ahmed [(2005) 12 SCC 140]; (9) Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 305], wherein some of the earlier decisions have been noticed; and (10) Sudheer Kumar vs. Manakkandi M.K. Kunhiraman & Anr. [2008 (1) KLJ 203], which was a decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein also the issue has been gone into in great detail.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1259 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Vinay Devanna Nayak vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd on 7 December, 2007

In the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (supra), the issue was raised and after taking note of the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., it was held that since the matter had been compromised between the parties and payments had been made in full and final settlement of the dues of the Bank, the appeal deserved to be allowed and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. Consequently, the order of conviction and 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2025 23:36:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:053373 CRR-2488-2015 (O&M) - 5- sentence recorded by all the courts were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the charge leveled against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 199 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Sudheer Kumar @ Sudheer vs Manakkandi M.K.Kunhiraman on 13 November, 2007

12. The said view has been consistently followed in the following cases; (1) Anil Kumar Haritwal & Anr. vs. Alka Gupta & Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 366]; (2) B.C. Seshadri vs. B.N. Suryanarayana Rao [2004 (11) SCC 510] decided by a three Judge Bench; (3) G. Sivarajan vs. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. [(2004 11 SCC 400]; (4) Kishore Kumar vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. [(2004 13 SCC 494]; (5) Sailesh Shyam Parsekar vs. Baban [(2005 (4) SCC 162]; (6) K. Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 54]; (7) K.J.B.L. Rama Reddy vs. Annapurna Seeds & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 632]; (8) Sayeed Ishaque Menon vs. Ansari Naseer Ahmed [(2005) 12 SCC 140]; (9) Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 305], wherein some of the earlier decisions have been noticed; and (10) Sudheer Kumar vs. Manakkandi M.K. Kunhiraman & Anr. [2008 (1) KLJ 203], which was a decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein also the issue has been gone into in great detail.
Kerala High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1   2 Next