Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)

Tej Ram And Ors. vs Harsukh on 10 August, 1875

5. A reference to Clause 29, Letters Patent, of the Allahabad High Court shows that the proceedings in all criminal cases before the High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original criminal jurisdiction were regulated by the procedure and practice which was in use in the High Court of Judicature for Port William in Bengal, immediately before the date of the publication of the Letters Patent, subject to any law which has been or may be made in relation thereto by competent legislative authority for India ; and the proceedings in all other criminal cases were regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, prescribed by an Act passed by the Governor-General in Council, and by Act No. XXV [25] of 1861, or by such further or other laws in relation to criminal procedure as may have been or may be made by such authority as aforesaid. Thus, the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court provided that the power of the High Court in criminal matters could be limited by laws passed by competent legislative authorities. In view of the above provisions contained in Sections 9 and 15, Indian High Courts Act, 1861, and Clause 29, Letters Patent, Allahabad the view taken in the Allahabad Cases arising under the High Courts Act and the Letters Patent was that the power of superintendence possessed by the High Court did not enable the High Court to interfere with the Judicial orders of subordinate Courts acting within the sphere of their jurisdiction. Vide Tej Ram v. Harsukh, 1 ALL.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

P. Rami Reddi And Ors. vs Chintha Chinna Narasi Reddi on 8 August, 1938

In Rami Reddy v. Narasi Reddy, A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 924, it was laid down that when members of one party beat the members of another party and the latter do not retaliate or make any attempt to retaliate but remain passive, it cannot be said that there was fighting between the members of one party and the members of the other; and offence of affray cannot be said to have been established. To constitute an affray there must be a fight and it is not a fight when one side is aggressive and the other side is passive.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next