Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-28-1953
Reported in : AIR1954All523; 1955CriLJ904
Malik, C.J.1. I have read the judgments prepared by learned brothers Desai and Muherji, jj. and agreed to the answers proposed by them.2. So far as the second question is concerned, it presents no difficulty and it is not necessary for me to add anything to what has already been said. All that the Oaths Act provides is, that nothing contained in the Oaths Act shall authorise the administration of oath to an accused person in a criminal proceeding. Reliance is not placed by the learned Government Advocate on anything in the Oaths Act to entitle him to cross-examine the contemner.3. The third question is a little difficult. Article 20(3) of the Constitution provides that: 'No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself,'We are concerned with the words 'accused of an offence'. I shall not like in this case to consider the larger question whether the words 'accused of' are restrictive and mean a person against whom proceeding in a criminal court for any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-07-1953
Reported in : AIR1953All647
Malik, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by some of the opposite parties against whom an order was made by the learned Company Judge under Section 153 CO (8), Companies Act (VII of 1913). A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the applicant respondent 1 that no appeal lies.2. We have confined the arguments only to the preliminary objection and, it is, therefore, not necessary to go into the facts in any detail. Rani Revati Devi filed an application in this Court under Section 153(C), Companies Act in the matter of the Vishnu Pracap Sugar Works Limited, Khadda, District Deoria. She claimed that the company was a private Ltd. Co. with a capital of Rs. 8,50,000/-, divided in 1,700 fully paid up shares of Rs. 500/- each, and most of the shares of the company were held by members of the Fadrauna Rai family. She alleged that she was a share-holder and managing director of the company and that opposite parties 2 to 4 supported by opposite parties 6 1o 8, and committed various ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-08-1953
Reported in : AIR1954All570
B. Mukerji, J.1. Sri S.K. Dutt, an advocate practising in this Court, has filed this suit purporting to be one under Section 13, Copyright Act, 1914. The plaintiff alleges that he is the author and sole owner of the copyright in the work entitled 'The Indian Partnership Act by Mukerji and Dutt'. This work, the plaintiff alleges, he published in the year 1934 in collaboration with Sir Manmotho Nath Mukerji, an ex-Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta and an ex-Law Member of the Government of India.The plaintiff further alleges that the aforementioned book--the Law of Partnership in India--has earned a great reputation and it has had sales in the United States of America, in England and practically throughout this country. The plaintiff's case further is that defendant No. 2, namely, J.N. Bagga, published a work entitled 'Law Book Company's Commentaries of Law & Practice of Partnership & Private Companies in India' in the year 1947. This rival publication, according to the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!