Shaikh Babbu S/O Shaikh Suleman vs Rashida W/O Shaikh Babbu And Anr. on 16 August, 2001
128; (4) Shambu v. Ghalamma, AIR 1966 Mys.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.71 seconds)Documents citing
Shambu Reddy vs Ghalamma on 7 April, 1966
Ammukutty Amma Ponnamma vs Narayana Panikkar Neelakantan Nair on 28 January, 1967
9. The High Court of Mysore has, in a recent decision in Shambu v. Ghalamma, AIR 1966 Mys 311, dealt with the conflict of Judicial opinion regarding the application of the aforesaid proviso. Their Lordships, after a review of a number of decisions of the Indian High Courts name to the conclusion that the
proviso following Sub-section (3) of See. 488 Cr. P. C. governs not only Sub-section (3) but also Sub-section (1) of Section 488. I am in respectful agreement with this conclusion. As there is a detailed discussion of this question in the above decision, it is unnecessary for me to cover the same ground.
A.S.N. Nair vs Sulochana on 1 June, 1981
Iqbalunnissa Begum v. Habeeb Pasha and Mehrun-nisa v. Noor Mohamed support this contention, while the decisions in Ram Khe-lavan v. State , Syed Ahmad v. N. P. Taj Begum AIR 1958 Mys 128 : 1958 Cri LJ 1201, Teia Bai v. Shankarrao , Raniit Kaur v. Dr. Avtar Singh AIR 1960 Punj 221 : 1960 Cri LJ 516, Govindram Narandas v. Ratanbai Nathuram AIR 1956 Sau 105 and Shambu Reddy v. Ghalamma AIR 1966 Mys 311 : 1966 Cri LJ 291 took the contrary view.
Smt. Savitri Devi vs Jagdish Narain on 11 November, 1975
A similar view was taken by the Mysore High Court in the case of Shambu Reddy v. Ghalamma, 1966 Cr LJ 1291 : AIR 1966 Mys 311 and the Patna High Court in the case of Abdul Ghaffar v. Bibi Hafiza Khatoon .
1