Skip to content
How to use Download this judgment as PDF
  1. Log in with a plan that includes downloads.
  2. Click Download on the judgment page.
  3. Save the PDF to your device for offline reading or filing.

Emperor Vs. D

Emperor vs D

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 05, 1934
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/884107
Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

D

Legal References

Reported In
152Ind.Cas.43

AI Legal Summary

Get an instant AI-powered legal breakdown - case summary, ratio decidendi, key issues, and more.

How to use Get a quick AI summary
  1. Open any judgment page.
  2. Click the AI Summary tab or button.
  3. Review facts, issues, and holding - verify against the full text before citing.

Excerpt

legal practitioners act (xviii of 1879), section 14 - charge under section 14 against pleader--when can be taken - m. c. ghose, j.1. upon hearing dr. basak in support of the reference and mr. mukerji on behalf of the pleader against whom these proceedings were started, we are of opinion, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the pleader d actually signed the petition of compromise which was put in. it is true that the munsif, who tried the suit, found against the pleader but, on appeal, the additional district judge disbelieved the evidence and came to the conclusion, as a final judge of fact, that it was not established that d signed the petition. in this view of the matter we are of opinion that the charge framed against him has not been established. the reference is rejected.williams, j.2. i agree.

Full Judgment

M. C. Ghose, J.

1. Upon hearing Dr. Basak in support of the reference and Mr. Mukerji on behalf of the pleader against whom these proceedings were started, we are of opinion, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the pleader D actually signed the petition of compromise which was put in. It is true that the Munsif, who tried the suit, found against the pleader but, on appeal, the Additional District Judge disbelieved the evidence and came to the conclusion, as a final Judge of fact, that it was not established that D signed the petition. In this view of the matter we are of opinion that the charge framed against him has not been established. The reference is rejected.

Williams, J.

2. I agree.


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files Start your Free Trial