Skip to content


Ravji Khandu Chambhar Vs. S.B. Fraser - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Civil Application No. 70 of 1906
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR638
AppellantRavji Khandu Chambhar
RespondentS.B. Fraser
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
bombay mamlatdors' courts act (bom. act iii of 1876)-possessory suit-injunction-disobedience of the injunction-power of the mamlatdar to punish for contempt of court. ;a mamlatdar deciding a possessory suit under the provisions of the bombay mamlatdar's courts act (bom. act iii of 1876) has not the power as a court to commit to prison for contempt of court for failure to carry out an injunction. - - ajinkya that the mam-latdar is not shown to have power as a court to commit to prison for contempt of court for the failure to carry out an injunction.lawrence jenkins, k.c.i.e., c.j.1. so far as the applicant before us complains that the mamlatdar has made no order for a prosecution under section 188 of the indian penal code, it is clear that he has come to the wrong court ; and so far as he complains that the mamlatdar has not passed an order sentencing the defendant to prison for contempt of court, we are of opinion, notwithstanding the very able argument of mr. ajinkya that the mam-latdar is not shown to have power as a court to commit to prison for contempt of court for the failure to carry out an injunction.2. we are invited to say what remedy a party has under these circumstances. we think that it would be wrong for us to express any opinion except upon the facts before us.3. we must, therefore, discharge the rule with costs.
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. So far as the applicant before us complains that the Mamlatdar has made no order for a prosecution under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, it is clear that he has come to the wrong Court ; and so far as he complains that the Mamlatdar has not passed an order sentencing the defendant to prison for contempt of Court, we are of opinion, notwithstanding the very able argument of Mr. Ajinkya that the Mam-latdar is not shown to have power as a Court to commit to prison for contempt of Court for the failure to carry out an injunction.

2. We are invited to say what remedy a party has under these circumstances. We think that it would be wrong for us to express any opinion except upon the facts before us.

3. We must, therefore, discharge the rule with costs.


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