Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (3.37 seconds)
Documents citing Narayanlal Bansilal vs Maneck Phiroze Mistry And Anr. on 3 September, 1958

Madhava Naik And Ors. vs Popular Bank Ltd., Alleppey on 28 March, 1960

It will not therefore be correct to say that these persons are not persons accused of any offence or that their public examination will not result in their giving evidence against themselves in respect of such offences. The decisions in Suryanarayana v. Vijaya Commercial Bank, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 756 and in Narayanlal V. Maneck Phirose, AIR 1959 Bom 320 cited in the order of the learned Single Judge have no real bearing on the facts of the present case. It does not appear that the persons sought to be publicly examined in those cases had been accused of specific offences punishable under the provisions oi the Companies Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Baburao Tatyaji Bhosle vs Madho Shrihari Aney on 6 April, 1960

(This is precisely what the new explanation now lays down). "Similarly Section 99(1)(b) which empowers the tribunal to fix the total amount of costs payable and to specify the person by and to whom that shall be paid in terms refers to cases where an order is made under Section 98. It cannot be suggested that, where an order of dismissal is passed under Section 90, Sub-section (3), the tribunal cannot make an appropriate order of costs. This provision also indicates that the order passed under Section 90, Sub-section (3) is in law and in substance an order passed under Section 98(a). It is true that in cases where such an order is passed, Section 93(1)(a) would not come into operation, but that can hardly affect the position that an order under Section 90, subsection (3) is nevertheless an order under Section 98.'" (Underlining (here in single quotation marks--Ed.) is ours.) It was urged that the words which we have underlined (here in ' ') do not constitute the ratio decidendi of the case and that at most those remarks were obiter. But with the greatest respect, in our opinion, even the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court are binding upon us. This is already settled so far as this Court is concerned, vide Narayanlal v. Maneck Phiroze and also the remarks of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Income-tax Commissioner Hyderabad Deccan v. Vazir Sultan and Sons though the latter remark is also an obiter dictum.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr. Arun Ganesh Phansalkar And Anr. vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1973

Thus the test about the character of the proceedings and the forum where the proceedings are initiated are intended to be taken are also not satisfied The decision in Narayanlal's case as also the decision in Maqbool Hussain's case, 1953 SCR 730 : 1953 Cri LJ 1432 therefore, clearly show that the proceeding in which the protection under Article 20 (3) can be sought by a person must be a proceeding in which he is accused of an offence. If there is no accusation in that proceeding, then the protection under Article 20 (3) cannot be invoked by a person, and he cannot decline to answer questions on the ground that he is being subjected to testimonial compulsion.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bhagwandas Goenka vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 12 February, 1960

The entire matter was considered very fully and elaborately by a Bench of the Bombay High Court, Chagla C. J. and S. T. Desai, J., in Narayanlal v. Maneck Phiroze, , and with respect, we are wholly in accord with the analysis and the conclusions to be found in this decision. It may be, as observed by Balakrishna Ayyar, J. in W. P. Nos. 291 and 292 of 1957 (Mad), that the immunity conferred by Article 20(3) will have to be extended to a point of time further back than when a person accused of an offence is formally before court. But that point of time must, undoubtedly, relate to a situation in which that person is, virtually and substantially, one against whom an accusation of a criminal offence has been levelled, and who has furnished replies to interrogations in such a context.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1