Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Ramballabh Jha vs The State Of Bihar on 27 February, 1962 cites

Chandrika vs Rex on 6 September, 1948

The decision in Chandrika's case, AIR 1949 All 176, which is a judgment of a single Judge, is based relying upon the previous decisions of that' Court and other decisions. It has been held therein that although a judgment pronounced without giving the party a reasonable opportunity to be heard in terms of the proviso to Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a judgment delivered without jurisdiction but, all the same, the previous order can be vacated on the basis of the inherent jurisdiction reserved to the Court under Section 561-A of the Code. Apart from the basis of the conclusion in which some difference of opinion has been expressed by the learned Judge, his conclusion also is in conformity with the view of the Lahore High Court and the Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court. In the case AIR 1952 Trav-Co. 210, the learned Judges constituting the Full Bench have laid down that in cases in which the parties were not given an opportunity of being heard, it may be taken to be an implied condition of such judgment or order that it should be open to reconsideration at the instance of the party prejudicially affected. The power of the Court to reconsider the matter is implied in the very nature of an 'ex parte' decision.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Sale Mahomed Haji Ahmed vs Emperor on 9 January, 1924

Section 561A, accordingly, comes into operation and such a manifest error on the part of the office resulting in the non-compliance of the requirement of Section 421 can be rectified taking recourse to Section 561-A. As Section 421 stands, there is considerable substance in the argument in support of the application put forward by the learned counsel. As it is, however, this matter is not res integra, but it has been considered in a number of cases and the views of all the High Courts are consistent with the argument advanced by the learned counsel. He has drawn our attention in support of his contention, therefore, to the following cases: Mahomed Sadiq v. Emperor, AIR 1925 Lah 355; Shahu v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Sind 84 (FB); Chandrika v. Rex, AIR 1949 All 176; and State v. Kunjan Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 210 learned counsel for the State, however, has mainly relied upon a decision in the matter of Gibbons, ILR 14 Cal 42.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1