SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(Cal) 47

G.K.MITTER, S.K.DATTA, S.P.MITRA
PROVASH CHANDRA MALLICK, ADVOCATE – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Arun Kumar Janah, D.K.GHOSH, M.M.SEN, S.C.JANAH

G. K. MITTER, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter arises out of a reference made by this Court for inquiry under Section 10 (2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. In consultation with the Bar Council the reference was made in March 1960 to the District Judge, Howrah, who after recording oral evidence, found the Advocate concerned to have used some words towards a Magistrate, constituting a contempt of Court.

( 2 ) AS there is a direct conflict of testimony between that of the Advocate and the Magistrate, it is necessary to refer in brief to the history of the litigation and the circumstances in which the words complained of arc alleged to have been uttered. As early as August 1955 there were disputes between one Suresh Chandra Bera and one Bejoy Kumar Mondal with regard to a cinema home in village Shyampur within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court of Uluberia in the district of Howrah, There were proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Second Officer, Ulberia, in which the said Snresh Chandra Bera was the first party, Bejoy Kumar Mondal was the second party No. 1 and one Jnanendra Nath Bera was second party No. 2. An interim order of attachmen


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top