Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '330891',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Reg.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '330891',
		(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '330891',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Reg.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '330891',
	(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/330891/reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '330891',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Reg.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '330891',
		(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '330891',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Reg.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '330891',
	(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/330891/reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

contempt of court - criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--nuisance, injunction to discontinue--indian penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 291. -

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '330891',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Reg.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '330891',
		(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '330891',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Reg.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '330891',
	(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/330891/reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '330891',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Reg.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '330891',
		(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '330891',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Reg.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '330891',
	(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/330891/reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. the court does not think that it can follow the allahabad high court--queen v. kultaram (i.l.r. 1 all, 129)--in holding that section 473 of the criminal procedure code, when it says that no court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under chap. x of the indian penal code. the reasons given by the madras high court (proceedings, 24th march 1873) (7 mad. h.c. rep. appendix xvii), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in sections 468 and 469 of the criminal procedure code are, in the court's mind, conclusive; and a division bench of this court [reg. v. navranbeg (10 bom. h.c. rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '330891',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Reg.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '330891',
		(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '330891',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Reg.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '330891',
	(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/330891/reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p>',
	(int) 1 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 2
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '330891',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Reg.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '330891',
		(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Reg Vs Parsapa Mahadevapa - Citation 330891 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '330891',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Reg.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--Nuisance, Injunction to discontinue--Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 291. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1876-08-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1877)ILR1Bom339',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Parsapa Mahadevapa',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '330891',
	(int) 1 => 'reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/330891/reg-vs-parsapa-mahadevapa'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's<p>',
	(int) 1 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 2
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Contempt of Court
Court	Mumbai
Decided On	Aug-17-1876
Judge	Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.
Reported in	(1877)ILR1Bom339
Appellant	Reg.
Respondent	Parsapa Mahadevapa

Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa - Court Judgment