Naresh shridhar merajkar Vs state of Marashatra..
Tell me about that case in easy words :)
please I need help . don't spam for points
Answers
Answer:
Karanjia (Suit No. 319 of 1960) on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, and claimed Rs. 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". This suit was tried by Mr.A reporter of the weekly along with other journalists moved this Court under Art. 32 challenging the validity of the order. . It was contended that : (i) the High Court did not have inherent power to pass the order; (ii) the impugned order violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art.
Answer:
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors V. State Of Maharashtra & Anr in India
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors V. State Of Maharashtra & Anr [1966] Insc 64; Air 1967 Sc 1; 1966 (3) Scr 744 (3 March 1966)
Court Judgment Information
Year: 1966
Date: 3 March 1966
Court: Supreme Court of India
INSC: [1966] INSC 64
Text of the Court Opinion
03/03/1966 GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) SARKAR, A.K.
WANCHOO, K.N.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
SHAH, J.C.
MUDHOLKAR, J.R.
SIKRI, S.M.
BACHAWAT, R.S.
RAMASWAMI, V.
Citation
1967 AIR 1 1966 SCR (3) 744
Citator Info
RF 1967 SC1643 (274) RF 1973 SC 106 (105) RF 1973 SC1461 (1717) D 1974 SC 532 (12) R 1978 SC 597 (41,66,67) R 1980 SC 898 (56) RF 1981 SC 917 (11, 12) RF 1981 SC2198 (21) R 1985 SC 61 (7) R 1986 SC 180 (31) R 1988 SC1531 (184) RF 1988 SC1883 (206) F 1989 SC1335 (22,26) R 1991 SC2176 (38)
Act
Practice and Procedur-Inherent jurisdiction of High CourtPower to stop publication of proceedings of a trial-Order if violates fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(a)-If amenable to proceedings under Art. 32 of the Constitution.