Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 150 security for costs Sorted by: old Court: privy council Year: 1919

Aug 20 1919 (PC)

Mioram Bewah Vs. Mrijan Sardar and anr. and Fzal Sheikh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-20-1919

Reported in : 54Ind.Cas.169

Syed Shamsul Huda, J.1. In a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, there were three persons in the 1st party and twenty in the second. Of the twenty persons forming the Second party, all except No. 10 stated in their written statements that they had no concern with the land which belonged to Moiram Bewa. Second party No. 10 alleged that he had been cultivating about a bigha of land as bargadar under (sic). Apparently they took no further interest is the case, adduced no (sic) did not cross-examine the (sic) of the first party. On the day the written statements were filed, Moiram Bewa appeared and asked to be made a party, alleging that the land in respect of which there was the dispute had not been correctly described and that the boundaries given in the proceeding included land on which stood her dwelling house and part of which she cultivated. She said that the other side had been trying fraudulently to deprive her of her homestead, of which she with her sons was in ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1919 (PC)

K.V. Subramania Iyer Vs. the District Magistrate of Salem

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-07-1919

Reported in : 55Ind.Cas.198

ORDERAbdur Rahim, Offg. C.J.1. Mr. K.V. Subramania Iyer, a First Grade Pleader practising in the Salem District, has been called upon by the District Magistrate of Salem to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act with reference to certain statements which occurred in. an article contributed by the Pleader to the newspaper 'New India' on the 5th August 1919. The gist of the article is to show that the present administration of criminal justice by the subordinate magistracy in the Salem District was not satisfactory. The general complaint was that the present District Magistrate had issued a number of circulars to the Subordinate Magistrates with reference to the granting of adjournments which fettered the discretion of the Subordinate Magistrates, in dealing with the cases before them properly, The statements subject-matter of the charge are; (a) 'The Magistrates were allowed great latitude to exercise their discretion and judgme...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //