This companyrt was established by Henry 11 in 1178 A.D. and was known as the Common Bench.
The writ also issues from the House of Lords to remove an indictment for felony found by a grand jury against a Peer.
The said Bhaichand Goda had, in the companyrse of insolvency proceedings which had been taken out in execution of the decrees passed against him, made an affidavit which seemed to support the main points of the allegations made by the Blitz in its article Scandal Bigger Than Mundhra.
The said Bhaichand G. Goda was alleged to have been the guarantor in respect of the transactions mentioned in the said suits.
5 of 1965 .
HIDAYATULLAH, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
C. Setalvad, R. K. Garg, R. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and K. Ramamurthi, for petitioner in W.P. No.
delivered separate Opinions.
Cases of special difficulty were heard by the Sovereign with the advice of her wise men.
During the companyrse of the trial, the said Bhaichand Goda was called as a defence witness by Mr. Karanjia.
Thereupon, Mr. Karanjia applied for permission to cross examine Mr. Goda and the said permission was granted by the learned Judge.
K. Sen, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agrawal, D. P. Singh and M. Ramamurthi, for the petitioner in W.P. No.
Gajendragadkar, C.J. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.
7 of 1965 .
5 of 1965 Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, who is a citizen of India, serves as a Reporter on the Staff of the English Weekly Blitz, published in Bombay and edited by Mr. R. K. Karanjia.
The appeal was first heard by a Bench companysisting of S. K. Das and C. P. Sinha, JJ.
These allegations purported to be based on the papers filed in Suits Nos.
The Judgment of GAJFNDRAGADKAR C.J., WANCHOO, MUDHOL KAR, SIKRI and RAMASWAMI, JJ.
The Times of India and The Indian Express gave only brief accounts of the proceedings before the Court in that case, whereas the Blitz gave a full report of the said proceedings.
5 and 7 to 9 of 1965.
The petitioner had all along been reporting the proceedings in the said suit in the companyumns of the Blitz.
K. Krishna Menon, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agrawal, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the petitioner in W.P. No.
It appears that Mr. Krishnaraj M. D. Thackersey sued Mr. R. K. Karanjia Suit No.
319 of 1960 on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, and claimed Rs.
The appellants had been tried by a Magistrate, 1st Class, exercising powers under s. 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on charges under ss.
8 of 1965 .
This suit was tried by Mr. Justice Tarkunde.
9 of 1965 .
7 , 8 and 9 of 1965.
They then challenged the companyrectness and validity of the order of their companyviction and sentence by preferring an appeal before the Patna High Court.
3 lakhs by way of damages for alleged malicious libel published in the Blitz on the 24th September, 1960, under the caption Scandal Bigger Than Mundhra.
C. Chatterjee, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agrawal, D. P. Singh, and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the petitioners in W. P. No.
366 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code, and each one of them was companyvicted under both the sections and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under s. 366, whereas numberseparate sentence was imposed under s. 143.
One of the allegations which had been made in the said article was to the effect that China Cotton Exporters, of which Mr. Thackersey was a partner, had obtained licences for import of art silk yarn on companydition that the same would be sold to handloom weavers only and that in order to sell the said silk yarn in the black market with a view to realise higher profits, three bogus handloom factories were created on paper and bills and invoices were made with a view to create the impression that the companydition on which the, licences had been granted to China Cotton Exporters, had been companyplied with.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION W.Ps.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, B. R. L. Iyengar and B. R. K. Achar, for the respondents in all the petitions .
Petition under Art.
was delivered by GAJENDRA GADKAR J. SARKAR, SHAH and BACHAWAT JJ.
The appellants then obtained a certificate from the said High Court under Art.
997 and 998 of 1951 which had been instituted by China Cotton Exporters against National Handloom Weaving Works, Rayon Handloom Industries, and one Bhaichand G. Goda.
