Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)
H.K.Dua vs Jagat Singh on 8 August, 2011 cites

K.M. Mathew vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 19 November, 1991

8. Thereafter, the petitioner moved two applications before the ld. Trial Court. The first application was for dropping the proceedings in terms of the then declared law of Supreme Court in case K. K. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1992 SC 2206. The second application was filed by the petitioner for exemption from personal Crl.M.C.1862/2007 Page 4 of 13 appearance till further orders and be permitted for putting in appearance through his counsel.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 328 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Prabhu Chawla And Others vs A.U. Sheriff on 26 October, 1994

17. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Prabhu Chawla Vs A. U. Sheriff III (1995) CCR 631, wherein it was held that, as per the definition of the „Editor‟ in Section 1(1) of the Act, means a person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. There is no Crl.M.C.1862/2007 Page 7 of 13 reference to Resident Editor, Executive Editor, Managing Editor in the said Act. There are no allegations against the aforesaid persons in the complaint to show that they have any hand in selection of the matter that is published in the „Indian Express Newspaper‟. Further held that, in absence of positive avermetns against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, who are described as Executive Editor, Managing Editor and Resident Editor and in the absence of presumption available u/s 7 of the said Act, against them, ld.Magistrate could have not ordered process for the alleged offence u/s 500 IPC.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Ahaji C. H. Mohammad Koya vs T. K. S. M. A. Muthukoya on 12 September, 1978

21. As was decided in the aforesaid case, Haji C. H. Mohammad Koya(Supra) that in the absence of positive averments against petitioner Nos.1 to 3, who are described as Executive Editor, Managing Editor and Resident Editor and in the absence, presumption available u/s 7 of the said Act against them, ld. Magistrate, could not have ordered processes for the alleged offence under Section 500 IPC. To ask the Executive Editor, Managing Editor and Resident Editor to undergo the trial because of issuing process against them would be oppressive. Keeping the aforesaid discussion into view, the proceedings was quashed against the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 111 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 Next