Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors. Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors.

Decided On : Mar-18-1884

Court : Chennai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 247',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 247'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Hutchins',
			(int) 1 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 1 => 'Court',
			(int) 2 => 'Magistrate'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the day'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1-30'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'a later hour'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '775286',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kuttiyali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code, Section 247 - Acquittal--Absence of prosecutor when case called on--Subsequent appearance on same day. - Section 16 (1) (c) :[Tarun Chatterjee & Aftab Alam,JJ] Ready and willing to perform-Concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - Buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before Supreme Court  Held, Concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. 

Section 20: [Tarun Chatterjee & Aftab Alam,JJ] Whether Time is the essence of contract  Held, Many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. Clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1884-03-18',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hutchins, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Hutchins, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The only point raised in this case is that a Magistrate, before acquitting an accused person under Section 247 for the complainant's default of appearance, is bound to wait till his Court is about to close for the day. I can see no foundation for this contention. The case was called on at 1-30, and it is admitted that the complainant was not present. Thereupon, the Magistrate was bound by Section 247 to acquit the accused, 'unless for some reason he thought proper to adjourn the hearing to some other day, 'or to a later hour on the same day.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I see nothing illegal in his acquitting the accused at once, and accordingly decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1883)ILR7Mad356',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pari Makri and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '775286'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 247',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 247'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Hutchins',
		(int) 1 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 1 => 'Court',
		(int) 2 => 'Magistrate'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the day'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1-30'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'a later hour'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '775286',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kuttiyali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code, Section 247 - Acquittal--Absence of prosecutor when case called on--Subsequent appearance on same day. - Section 16 (1) (c) :[Tarun Chatterjee & Aftab Alam,JJ] Ready and willing to perform-Concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - Buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before Supreme Court  Held, Concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. 

Section 20: [Tarun Chatterjee & Aftab Alam,JJ] Whether Time is the essence of contract  Held, Many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. Clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1884-03-18',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hutchins, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Hutchins, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The only point raised in this case is that a Magistrate, before acquitting an accused person under Section 247 for the complainant's default of appearance, is bound to wait till his Court is about to close for the day. I can see no foundation for this contention. The case was called on at 1-30, and it is admitted that the complainant was not present. Thereupon, the Magistrate was bound by Section 247 to acquit the accused, 'unless for some reason he thought proper to adjourn the hearing to some other day, 'or to a later hour on the same day.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I see nothing illegal in his acquitting the accused at once, and accordingly decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1883)ILR7Mad356',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pari Makri and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '775286'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 247',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 247'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Hutchins',
			(int) 1 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 1 => 'Court',
			(int) 2 => 'Magistrate'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the day'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1-30'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'a later hour'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '775286',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kuttiyali',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code, Section 247 - Acquittal--Absence of prosecutor when case called on--Subsequent appearance on same day. - Section 16 (1) (c) :[Tarun Chatterjee & Aftab Alam,JJ] Ready and willing to perform-Concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - Buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before Supreme Court  Held, Concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. 

Section 20: [Tarun Chatterjee & Aftab Alam,JJ] Whether Time is the essence of contract  Held, Many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. Clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1884-03-18',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hutchins, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Hutchins, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The only point raised in this case is that a Magistrate, before acquitting an accused person under Section 247 for the complainant's default of appearance, is bound to wait till his Court is about to close for the day. I can see no foundation for this contention. The case was called on at 1-30, and it is admitted that the complainant was not present. Thereupon, the Magistrate was bound by Section 247 to acquit the accused, 'unless for some reason he thought proper to adjourn the hearing to some other day, 'or to a later hour on the same day.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I see nothing illegal in his acquitting the accused at once, and accordingly decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1883)ILR7Mad356',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Pari Makri and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '775286'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 247',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 247'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Hutchins',
		(int) 1 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 1 => 'Court',
		(int) 2 => 'Magistrate'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the day'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1-30'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'a later hour'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '775286',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kuttiyali',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kuttiyali Vs. Pari Makri and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code, Section 247 - Acquittal--Absence of prosecutor when case called on--Subsequent appearance on same day. - Section 16 (1) (c) :[Tarun Chatterjee & Aftab Alam,JJ] Ready and willing to perform-Concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - Buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before Supreme Court  Held, Concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. 

Section 20: [Tarun Chatterjee & Aftab Alam,JJ] Whether Time is the essence of contract  Held, Many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. Clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1884-03-18',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hutchins, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Hutchins, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The only point raised in this case is that a Magistrate, before acquitting an accused person under Section 247 for the complainant's default of appearance, is bound to wait till his Court is about to close for the day. I can see no foundation for this contention. The case was called on at 1-30, and it is admitted that the complainant was not present. Thereupon, the Magistrate was bound by Section 247 to acquit the accused, 'unless for some reason he thought proper to adjourn the hearing to some other day, 'or to a later hour on the same day.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I see nothing illegal in his acquitting the accused at once, and accordingly decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1883)ILR7Mad356',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Pari Makri and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '775286'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 247, Section 247

PERSON: Hutchins, J.1

ORG: Magistrate, Court, Magistrate

DATE: the day

CARDINAL: 1-30

TIME: a later hour