Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Narain vs Mool Chand And Ors. on 6 November, 1959

Sri Tirthankar Sarkar vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 19 April, 2023

"That the instant proceeding grounded upon vague, preposterous and concocted complaint is liable to be quashed and seeks immediate interference of this Hon'ble Court because it fulfills the three cardinal principles and/or conditions to be taken into account while quashing a proceeding i.e. firstly the injustice that comes to light should be of grave character and not of trivial character; Secondly it should be clear and palpable and not doubtful and thirdly there exists no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief as rightly laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chinnam Ramnath Patro vs Chandramma Guni And Anr. on 29 October, 1962

8. It was also contended that appearance at any time during the Court hours is sufficient compliance within the meaning of Section 247, Cri. P. C. as would appear from the use of the word "day" in that section and the case in Ram Narain v. Mool Chand, AIR 1960 All 296 was cited as an authority for this purpose. In that case after the order under Section 247 was passed the complainant appeared in Court. His Lordship was of the opinion that the word 'day' as appearing in Section 247, Cri. P. C. should not be given a narrow interpretation so as to mean only the particular moment when the case was called out and the complainant was found to be absent, but it means the whole of the working hours of the day. According to him it is sufficient compliance of Section 247 if the complainant appeared later in the day or who was present earlier in the day and could furnish adequate reason for his absence at that moment. With great respect, I would say that it is an extreme view. If the 'day' as occurring in Section 247, Cri. P. C. would mean the entire working hours from 10.30 to 4 then the position would be that the Court has to wait till the last hour before passing an order under Section 247. There is nothing in the section to justify, such a construction so as to entitle the parties to appear in the last moment or any time before closing hours of the day.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Jai Prakash Sharma vs Jagdamba Parsad And Ors. on 14 November, 1979

In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision given by a single Judge of Allahabad High Court in Ram Narain v. Mool Chand . In a lengthy judgment recorded by the learned Judge in that case it has been Held that the word "day" used in Section 247 meant the whole of the working hours of the day and not the moment when the case is called. We have gone through this decision but, with great respect of the learned Judge, we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by him. All cases are fixed on a particular day or date, and if this view is taken, then every litigant concerned in these cases can legitimately insist to remain present only at the close of the day when the court is about to rise. In such a contingency, the court would not be able to transact any business and whole position would become certainly ridiculous. Therefore, the only reasonable view which could be taken is that when a case is fixed on a particular day or date, the concerned parties are bound to remain present when the case is called during the course of that day or date, because, the calling of the case depends upon the nature and the urgency of the business which is required to be transacted on that day, and not upon the volition of the litigant to remain present at his leisure by selecting a particular time on that day.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mohd. Yamin vs Zafar Mohammad And Ors. on 18 October, 1967

(3) It is very strongly argued on behalf of the complainant that the learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the accused and nto waiting, at least for some time, for the complainant to appear and prosecute the case. According to the counsel's argument before us, the complainant had just gone to the W.C. for a few minutes and the case was disposed of in his absence by acquitting the accused persons. This order is described to be contrary to the provisions of Section 247, Criminal P. C., and also violate of the instructions contained in the High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. Iii Chap. I-F. Our attention has also been drawn to Ram Narain v. Mool Chand, , a single Bench decision of the Lucknow Bench, and to Naresdh Prasad v. Mahavir Singh, , antoher Single Bench decision of the Allahabad Court, in support of the appeal.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - I D Dua - Full Document
1   2 Next