Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Act:JUDICIAL OFFICERS' PROTECTION ACT Page:2

Feb 19 1965

Anowar Hussain Vs. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and Ors.

  • Decided on : 19-Feb-1965

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR1965SC1651; 1965CriLJ686

... the protection of the Judicial Officers Protection Act. There was no plea in the written statement that the appellant was, in issuing the order for arrest of the respondent, acting in the discharge of his judicial duty and that on that account he was entitled to the protection of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. ... acted in discharge of his judicial duties, and be was on that account protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. Section 1 of the Act, in so far as it is material, provided:'No Judge, Magistrate, * * * Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act-done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial ... protection of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. Deka, J., expressed a contrary opinion. The appeal was then referred to Mehrotra, J., who agreed with the opinion of Sarjoo Prasad, C J.8. In this appeal, the only question raised is that in ordering the arrest of the respondent the appellant acted in discharge of his judicial duties, and be was on that account protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act ... protected in respect of the acts done by him by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850, the Court of First Instance, it appears, allowed that plea to be raised, and held that on the evidence it was clear that the appellant in issuing an order for arrest of the respondent had not acted in the discharge of his judicial duties, but merely as an executive officer ...

May 07 1960

K. Govindaraja Iyengar Vs. Petha Ponnan

  • Decided on : 07-May-1960

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1961Mad211; (1961)1MLJ383

... that the offence complained of was in relation to a judicial proceeding of that Court, and that the appellant acted in his official capacity as President of that Court. Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act (XVIII of 1850) would be a complete bar to ... him.2. The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit with costs holding (upon issue 1) that Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act (Act XVIII) of 1850) was a total bar to the suit.3. The learned District Judge, in appeal, set aside the ... Judicial Officers Protection Act (XVIII of 1850) would be a complete bar to any such suit. It is noteworthy that the words 'in good faith' occurring in Section 1 relate to the juris-dictional capacity, about which there is really no dispute in the present case, and not to any question of purity of motive.The very wide immunity granted by this Act ... no such remand of the suit could have been made, in view of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Judicial Officers Protection Act (XVIII of 1850).4. Upon a careful consideration of this matter, I am of the view that the appeal ought ... judicial comment. The argument that such wide and unqualified protection would sometimes cover the evil intentioned acts of corrupt judicial agencies was raised, but not considered as a good ground for any other view of the beneficent provision of this Act. Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C. J., tersely put the matter thus in Girjashankar v. Gopalji, ILR 30 Bom 241,'The protection afforded to judicial officers ...

Mar 07 1973

Ramlal Kanhaiyalal Somani a partnership firm Vs. Ajit Kumar Chatterjee ...

  • Decided on : 07-Mar-1973

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1973Cal372

... Judicial Officers Protection Act, provided he has acted in good faith. In this case, as already discussed by us, clearly the first respondent believed in good faith that he was bound to execute the order and attach the properties of the partnership firm by actual seizure and therefore in any view of the matter he is entitled to protection under Section 1 of the judicial Officers Protection Act ... again on Udharam's case AIR 1937 Sind 281, in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind (supra) to show that where the subordinate authority acted beyond his permissible limits, it could not seek protection under Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, only on the ground that he acted in good faith. Mr. Das has also relied on a passage from Pollock ... authority acted beyond his permissible limits, it could not seek protection under Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, only on the ground that he acted in good faith. Mr. Das has also relied on a passage from Pollock on Torts, 15th Ed. pages 85-86 to show that the same view was adopted by the learned author namely that 'an Officer arresting ... officer acted in good faith and not whether he was actuated by malice. Clearly there is a distinction between good faith and malice. This court has held in Sewalram Agarwalla's case AIR 1938 Cal 177 (supra), as noticed earlier, that an officer is protected in carrying out an order of the Court, even in excess of jurisdiction under Section 1 of Judicial Officers Protection Act ...

Sep 17 1965

Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh Vs. D. Seshagiri Rao

  • Decided on : 17-Sep-1965

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1966AP167; 1966CriLJ642

... the officers concerned, ami hence the allegations could not amount to contempt.21. It may straightway be mentioned that under Section 1 of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850, a judicial officer cannot be sued in any civil court for any act Hour or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty ... Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850, a judicial officer cannot be sued in any civil court for any act Hour or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty whether or not within the limits of his jurisdiction; Provided that he at the lime, in good faith, believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act ... act in a matter, and is not restricted to the narrower sense of authority and power to do an act in a particular form or manner in which it is done. In other words, it re lates to the power, scope and ambil of authority, and, if in good faith a judicial officer ... act in a particular form or manner in which it is done. In other words, it re lates to the power, scope and ambil of authority, and, if in good faith a judicial officer believes that he had jurisdiction to do the net complained of, he is immune from liability. It cannot be contended that the officers ... the purview of the law of contempt. In our opinion, imputing improper motives to a judicial officer in proceedings in a court of law is a sufficient publication so as to attract the Contempt of Courts Act and it is not necessary that they should be published in a newspaper'. The ...

Apr 04 1961

State of U.P. Vs. Lakshmi Narain Singhal

  • Decided on : 04-Apr-1961

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1962All137

... case could legally file a suit against the Magistrate.7. The Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1950, 1 provides as follows :--'No Judge, Magistrate, Justice of Peace Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any civil Court for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his jurisdictions ... already pointed out, the question of good faith is quite immaterial, inasmuch as the act complained of was fully within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned.16. Finally, it is argued on behalf of the respondent that even if his suit is barred by the provisions of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, mere notice under Section 80 is not subject to any such bar. But ... . Muhammad Sharafatullah Khan, AIR 1917 All 355(2). That case, however, was one in which the plaint on the face of it disclosed a cause of action with which the Judicial Officers Protection Act had nothing to do. In the present case the plaint of the suit filed by the respondent is not before me, but I take it that it is based on ... act complained of.'This section affords protection to a Judge or Magistrate acting judicially in two classes of cases: (a) in respect of acts done or. ordered to be done within the limits of his jurisdiction, and (b) for acts done or ordered to be done outside the limits of his jurisdiction. In the first class of cases the protection afforded by the Act is absolute and the officer ...

Jul 04 2001

Jahid Hasan and others Vs. Dy. Director, Consolidation, Shaharanpur an ...

  • Decided on : 04-Jul-2001

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2001(3)AWC2038

... revisions, perform their duties as judicial officers and they are protected under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. Under the aforesaid Act, the immunity granted to Consolidation Authorities, while exercising their judicial power is exceedingly wide so that they may act fearlessly, impartially and with a sense of security. The Judicial Officers' Protection Act is extendable even in those cases where Consolidation Authorities have acted without jurisdiction in passing judicial orders, on the ... Act.6. It is well to remember that all the Consolidation Authorities, while exercising their powers in deciding objections, appeals or revisions, perform their duties as judicial officers and they are protected under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. Under the aforesaid Act, the immunity granted to Consolidation Authorities, while exercising their judicial power is exceedingly wide so that they may act fearlessly, impartially and with a sense of security. The Judicial Officers' Protection Act ... Act. Entries incorporated on the basis of judicial orders are made subject to appeal and revision under the said Act.6. It is well to remember that all the Consolidation Authorities, while exercising their powers in deciding objections, appeals or revisions, perform their duties as judicial officers and they are protected under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. Under the aforesaid Act, the immunity granted to Consolidation Authorities, while exercising their judicial ...

Sep 06 1994

Yaqub Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

  • Decided on : 06-Sep-1994

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1995CriLJ1376; 1995(2)WLC730

... my attention towards the provision of Section 3 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act according to which if some judicial order is passed in bona fide belief then such orders are not open for action against Judl. officer. In my humble opinion, the argument of Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has substance and the act of learned City Magistrate, Udaipur cannot be treated ... copy of the Agreement dated 11-8-70 between Shri Barkatullah Khan, Minister for power, Law, Judicial Linguistic, Minorities, Legislative Assembly, Prison and Wakfs Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and representative of His Holiness Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb, the 52nd Dai-ul-Mutlaq and office order dated 25-8-70 signed by the Secretary, Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, Jaipur for ... out of seclusion, the powers of the Dai would cease.9. Now, it has been decided judiciously that the entire management and control of the Moiyatpura Mosque in question vest in Dai-ul-Mutlaq, who is the sole trustee. The sole trustee has his Head Office at Badri Mahal, Bombay.10. After giving brief history of Dia-ul-Mutlaq (hereinafter referred ... user is also involved, the parties are at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property including safeguarding their possession as well as user during pendency of such dispute before the Civil Court. In my humble opinion, multiplicity of litigation is not ...

Jan 04 2010

Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors.

  • Decided on : 04-Jan-2010

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR2010SC615; 2010(1)AWC703(SC); 2010(2)BomCR258; JT2010(1)SC66; RLW2010(1)SC651; 2010(1)SCALE124; (2010)2SCC1

... RTI Act. Thus, the application was not maintainable. More so, the judicial officers are protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850 (hereinafter called the 'Act 1850'). Hence, this petition.4. Mr. V. Kanagaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that right to information is a fundamental right of every citizen. The RTI Act does not provide for any special protection to the ... public authority is per se illegal and unwarranted. A judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect malicious or corrupt judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if the concerned judicial officers were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to ... under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the 'RTI Act') has been dismissed. In the said petition, the direction was sought by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1 to provide information as asked by him vide his application dated 15.11.2006 from the Respondent No. 4 - a Judicial Officer as for what reasons, the ... Judicial Order dismissing the appeal against the interim relief granted by the Trial Court. The Respondent No. 4 had been impleaded as respondent by name. The Writ Petition had been dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that the information sought by the petitioner cannot be asked for under the RTI Act. Thus, the application was not maintainable. More so, the judicial officers ...

Aug 10 2005

Banu Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director Sri B. ...

  • Decided on : 10-Aug-2005

Court : Chennai

Reported in : I(2007)BC465; [2006]131CompCas224(Mad)

... irresponsible allegation against the Debt Recovery Officer. Under Rule 82 to Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Recovery Officer shall be deemed to be acting judicially within the meaning of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act , 1850. Under Rule 19 of Schedule II to the Income tax Act, 1961, any officer authorised to attach or sell any property may apply to the officer in-charge of the nearest ... Judicial Officers' Protection Act , 1850. Under Rule 19 of Schedule II to the Income tax Act, 1961, any officer authorised to attach or sell any property may apply to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or such assistance as may be necessary in the discharge of his duties and the authority to whom such an application is made shall depute sufficient number of police officers ... , the auction purchasers lodged a police complaint. The Recovery Officer, D.R.T. also has written a letter to Station House Officer on 3.2.2003 stating that the possession has been handed over to the auction purchasers on 31.1.2003. In pursuance of the letter given by the Recovery Officer, protection was given by the police. In the meantime, without ... cannot be said to be in force in view of the possession given to the auction purchasers by the Recovery Officer on 31.1.2003 itself. 13. The serious allegation levelled against the Recovery Officer who is deemed to be the judicial officer attached to the Tribunal and the false particulars given in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in the ...

Dec 10 1980

Rachapudi Subba Rao Vs. Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh

  • Decided on : 10-Dec-1980

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR1981SC755; 1981CriLJ315; (1981)2SCC577; [1981]2SCR320

... The contention is clearly unsustainable. Section 1 of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850 provides :No Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his ... or proceeding. It follows that if the judicial officer is found to have been acting in the discharge of his judicial duties, then, in order to exclude him from the protection of this statute, the complainant has to establish that (1) the judicial officer complained against was acting without any jurisdiction whatsoever, and (2) he was acting without good faith in believing himself to have ... and Ors. : 1965CriLJ686 the Section affords protection to two broad categories of acts done or ordered to be done by a judicial officer in his judicial capacity. In the first category fall those acts which are within the limits of his jurisdiction. The second category encompasses those acts which may not be within the jurisdiction of the judicial officer, but are, nevertheless, done or ... entertained as to whether the act done or ordered to be done was erroneous, or even illegal, or was done or ordered without believing in good faith.10. In the case of acts of the second category, the protection of the statute will be available if at the time of doing, ordering the act, the judicial officer acting judicially, in good faith believed ...

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