Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.60 seconds)

Nahar Singh vs The State on 24 September, 1951

That takes the view that when both the parties are in joint possession of the property in dispute, Section 145 Cr. P. C. does not apply and the Magistrate cannot keep such a property under attachment under Section 146 Cr. P. C. That decision takes the view simitar to Nahar Singh's case, . Such a view appears to me to be opposed to the very intendment of the Cr. P. C. in enacting provisions like sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. in order to meet urgent situations where there is likelihood of breach of the peace. Dropping the proceedings like hot coal in a case of joint possession would not be a panacea to the ills which are sought to be effectively checked by the said provisions. This view I would have taken but for the fact of conflicting decisions on the point.
Allahabad High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Muhammad Koolayappa Rowthan vs Sheik Abdul Khadhir Rowther And Anr. on 28 July, 1914

It is held that where a Magistrate finds after enquiry that the parties were in joint and actual possession of the property in dispute, be should drop the proceedings started under Section 145 Cr. P. C. This is the view taken by the Oudh High Court in the case of Mahamood Beg v. Ehasan Beg, AIR 1941 Oudh 515; AIR 1948 Oudh 130 Gopinath Singh v. Emperor; The Nagpur High Court in the case of Sheoprasad Shriram v. Govindram Hardit Rai, AIR 1940 Nag 265; by the Patna High Court in the case of Nanda Kishore v. Kalika Misslr, AIR 1923 Pat 546; by the Madras High Court in the case of Mahomed Khoolayappa v. Abdul Khadir, AIR 1915 Mad 396 and in the case of Krishna Thevar v. State of Madras (1955) 2 Mad LJ 382.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next