Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Joti Prasad And Ors. vs Emperor on 8 January, 1920

Chhotelal And Anr. vs Emperor on 21 October, 1935

3. But in Joti Prasad v. Emperor 1931 ALJ 986 where a person had been convicted under Section 9(a), Salt Act and under Section 117, I.P.C., it was held by a Bench of this Court that as there was nothing in the special act to exclude the operation of the general criminal law, it could not be inferred that there was an intention on the part of the legislature to exclude it. It was held that there was no bar to the accused being prosecuted for abetment under Section 117, I.P.C., instead of under Section 9(c), Salt Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nunu Singh vs Muni Nath Singh And Ors. on 3 August, 1953

16. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, one of the conditions of the application of Section 10 is not fulfilled. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to cases of -- 'Wahid-un-nisa Bibi v. Zamin Ali Shah', AIR 1920 All 70 (C); -- 'Joti Prasad v. Emperor', AIR 1920 All 265 (D); -- 'AIR 1935 Cal 1 (B)' and -- 'Shamaji Narayan v. Govind Rangacharya', AIR 1945 Born 45 (E) which deal with the considerations which should weigh with the Court in coming to the conclusion whether the issues in two suits are directly and substantially the same or not. The learned Subordinate Judge tried to get over the difficulty about the pecuniary competency of the Barh Court to hear the case pending before him by saying that the plaintiff wanted recovery of possession in the Patna suit in respect of only 15.81 acres which are the only lands claimed by the defendants first party in the Patna Court as well as the Barh Court. This is not so. The plaintiff has claimed title in the Patna suit to lands measuring 13.67 acres while the area of the suit land in the Barh suit is only 15.81 acres or so which were the subject-matter of the award by the Bakasht Board.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1