Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Bhola Nath Mitter vs Emperor on 3 January, 1924

The Suprintendent And Remembrancer Of ... vs Bidhindra Kumar Roy And Ors. on 23 July, 1948

5. For my own pArticle I am not, with great respect, satisfied that the decision in the case of Bhola Nath Das v. Emperor , is correct in so far as it appears to hold that action cannot be taken under Section 344, Criminal P. C, unless cognisance has been taken of the case in the technical meaning of that term. So far as the questions of granting bail are concerned, in view of the decision itself, the point is rather academic for any police paper presented stating the reasons for requiring a remand and further detention of the accused can be treated as a report on which cognisance can be taken.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Kartick Kundu vs The State on 23 February, 1966

16. What remains now is to notice a Division Bench decision of this High Court in Bhola Nath Mitter v. Emperor dealing with a case of adultery, inducement and marriage. There the charge relating to adultery alleged the commission of the offence between September and 24th October 1922 and also between 15th November and 29th December 1922. According to Mr. Dutta's argument this charge would have been bad. In fact that argument was made in that case. But the Division Bench overruled that contention and Fanton J. delivering the judgment of the Division Bench observed at page 493 of that report (ILR Cal)=(at p. 617 of AIR) as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ishwari Prasad And Ors. vs Rai Hari Prasad Lal on 23 February, 1926

590 : 25 C.W.N. 639 : 48 C. 926 and Bhola Nath Mitter v. Emperor 81 Ind. Cas. 709 : 28 C.W.N. 323 : 51 C. 488 : A.L.R. 1924 Cal. 616 : 25 Cr. L.J. 997. The last two cases have gone so far as to legalise inter-marriages between Kayasthas and Tantis, Domes in Bengal, on the ground that both of them are sub-castes Of Sudras. The matter was neither inquired into nor discussed. It was taken as settled and the only authority relied upon is the aforesaid passage in the Vyavastha Darpana referred to above.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Macneill And Barry Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 23 December, 1983

It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the said item was restricted and limited to the articles specifically mentioned there. The High Court construed the said item and held that the word "namely" had various shades and meanings depending on the context and the intent in which it was used. Following Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Edition and Webster's International Dictionary it was held that the word "namely" meant "including" or "by name" or "that is to say" and that in the description of goods, the articles mentioned after the word "namely" were meant to be illustrations of the goods intended to be included in the general description of electric lighting fittings and were not exhaustive. The High Court noted that in Bhola Prasad v. Emperor reported in AIR 1942 FC 17 where the Federal Court held that the expression "that is to say" only explained and illustrated but did not limit the words preceding the expression. It was held that electric lamp holders were eligible to duty under the said item.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kali Charan Som vs Priya Nath Das on 8 March, 1938

In this connexion the attention of the learned Magistrate who heard the appeal is drawn to the observations of this Court in Inatulla Sarkar v. Emperor and Bhola Nath Mullick v. Emperor (1903) 7 CWN 30. The rule is made absolute, the judgment of the Court of Appeal below is set aside and the appeal is ordered to be re-heard and disposed of according to law, either by the Sessions Judge of Khulna or by the Additional Sessions Judge of that District.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next