Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Somabhai Valabhbhai vs Aditbhai Parshottam on 27 February, 1924

In Re : Pampappa Ballalrao Desai vs Unknown on 10 February, 1926

11. It is further pointed out that in the sections giving the High Court certain powers in revision - I refer to Section 439(1) - the old Section 195 has been omitted. It is further argued that although this Court is by Section 439 given all the powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Section 423 (amongst other sections) yet Section 423 would not enable this Court to alter or vary Mr. Ferrer's order. But, after listening to an interesting argument, we think that there is jurisdiction under Section 423(c) to treat the present application as an appeal from Mr. Ferrer's order, and in the words of that section " to alter or reverse such order," and further that we have power under Sub-section (d) to make " any incidental order that may be just and proper." As we read the decision of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Shah in Somabhai v. Aditbhai A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 347 they agree that the jurisdiction exists although it ,has to be sparingly exercised.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re: Pampappa Ballalrao Desai vs Unknown on 10 February, 1926

9. The Advocate-General was really unable to dispute the argument that if the Magistrate was correct in thinking that a '"charge" had been laid before him, then the procedure actually adopted by the Magistrate for dealing with that complaint was irregular, Accordingly, in our judgment the contention of the applicant, so far as it refers to Section 211, is correct, and consequently it was not open to the District Magistrate to lodge a complaint for making a false charge until he had first investigated according to law the original complaint, which the applicant had made. I should here mention that, as a preliminary point, the Advocate-General argued that no appeal would lie to us from Mr. Ferrer's order as regards either Section 211 or 182. It was pointed out that the old Section 195(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been omitted in the amended Code, and that there is now a new Section 476(B) which gives a direct right to appeal to a superior Court from either admission or the rejection of a complaint in an inferior court. It is further pointed out that in the sections giving this High Court certain powers in revision-I refer to a 439 (1)-the old Section 195 has been omitted. It is further argued that although this Court is by Section 439 given all the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Section 423 (amongst other sections) yet Section 423 would not enable this Court to alter or vary Mr. Ferrer's order, But, after listening to an interesting argument, we think that there is jurisdiction under Section 423(c) to treat the present application as an appeal from Mr. Ferrer's order, and in the words of that section "to alter or reverse such order," and further that we have power under Sub-secbion (d) to make "any incidental order that may be just and proper." As we read the decision of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Shah in Somabhai v. Aditbhai they agree that the jurisdiction exists although it has to be sparingly exercised.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1