Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 2224
of 1970, Judgment Date: Mar 19, 1975
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 998
of 1971, Judgment Date: Feb 12, 1975
Full Judgment
Bombay High Court (Single Judge)
CRIMINAL APPEAL, ----
Judgment Date: Feb 01, 1974
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 1296
of 1972, Judgment Date: Apr 05, 1973
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 208
of 1969, Judgment Date: Aug 24, 1972
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 657
of 1972, Judgment Date: Dec 02, 1971
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 2564
of 1966, Judgment Date: Oct 20, 1970
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 2355
of 1970, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 1970
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 1636
of 1960, Judgment Date: Oct 15, 1968
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 379
of 1965, Judgment Date: Dec 08, 1967
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 245
of 1962, Judgment Date: Sep 16, 1964
The preamble may, no doubt, be used to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one meaning, but it can, however, not be used to eliminate as redundant or unintended, the operative provisions of a statute. Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 42
of 1963, Judgment Date: Aug 24, 1964
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was prosecuted and convicted for theft of electrical energy under s. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act (9 of 1910). He contended that, as his prosecution was for an offence against the Act it was incompetent, because, it had not been instituted at the instance of any of the persons mentioned in s. 50 of the Act.
HELD :
The conviction of the appellant must be set aside. The dishonest abstraction of electricity mentioned in s. 39 Full Judgment
Bombay High Court (Single Judge)
CRIMINAL APPEAL, ----
Judgment Date: Sep 26, 1963
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench- Seven Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 331
of 1964, Judgment Date: Aug 14, 1963
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 130
of 1956, Judgment Date: Dec 03, 1957
HEADNOTE:
The appellant who was a public servant was dismissed from service after departmental inquiry. Thereafter he was charged with having committed the offence of criminal misconduct under S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was convicted. No sanction under s. 6 of the Act was produced, before the trial Court. It was contended that the Court could not take cognizance of the offence without there being a proper sanction to prosecute : Held, that no sanction under s. Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Four Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 200
of 1956, Judgment Date: Sep 06, 1957
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 838
of 1956, Judgment Date: Oct 19, 1956
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India
Appeal (Crl.), 90
of 1952, Judgment Date: Oct 12, 1954
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench- Five Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 560
of 1954, Judgment Date: May 27, 1954
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench- Seven Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 81
of 1952, Judgment Date: Apr 17, 1953
Full Judgment
