Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 205 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rajendra Singh vs Uma Prasad on 7 October, 1937
11. On behalf of the petitioners reliance has been placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Rajendra Singh v. Uma Prasad . There in that case notice was held undoubtedly to put extraneous pressure on the defendant in order to compel him under the threat of drastic action being taken against him to withdraw the plea which had been taken by him specifically in the written statement. Indeed there in that case an offer also was made to desist from taking legal action if within a certain time fixed the defendant withdrew the plea contained in his written statement. Therefore the court came to the conclusion there that there could be no doubt that the effect that was intended to be produced on the mind of the defendant's guardian by this notice was to compel him to abandon the plea which might well have been a legitimate plea in the written statement. This case is distinguishable on many points from the instant case before the Court, In the first place, this was not a case of a civil suit for defamation and a criminal proceeding for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, a point with which we are directly concerned in this Rule. Secondly in that case, there was no doubt that there was a direct interference with the administration of justice as pointed out by the learned Judges at page 118 of that report. Indeed the attempt there was to compel withdrawal of a plea already taken in the written statement pending trial. The present case before us is very different, and makes no such attempt.
Section 198 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Hirabai Jehangir Mistry vs Dinshaw Edulji Karkaria on 10 September, 1926
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hirabai Jehangir v. Dinshaw Edulji on the other hand observed at page 183 (of ILR Bom): (at page 28 of AIR) that on the quantum of damages the civil Court might recognise that the defendant had already been punished in a criminal Court and take that into consideration in awarding civil damages.
Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962
24. It remains now to refer to the last two cases which were cited for the petitioners by Mr. Dutt. The first case is , Pratap Singh v. Gurbaksh Singh. This was a case which laid down the principle that as the action taken by the appellants against the respondent by way of instituting disciplinary proceeding against him at a time when his suit was pending in the civil Court could have only one tendency, namely, the tendency to coerce Kim and force him to withdraw his suit or face the consequences of disciplinary action and therefore, a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice, and therefore, it was held that the appellants were guilty of contempt of Court. The question there arose on a Government circular which provided that any attempt by a Government servant to seek a decision on such issues in a Court of law without first exhausting the normal official channels of redress, could only be regarded as contrary to official propriety and subversive of good discipline and might well justify the initiation of disciplinary action against the Government servant. The propriety of this rule was challenged.