Kolkata Court March 1883 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Peary Mohun Sircar Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal639
Wilson, J.1. This was a rule granted to show cause why a conviction should not be set aside on the ground that, assuming the facts found to be correct, the conviction was bad in law. We have had the advantage of hearing the arguments of the petitioner's Counsel, and it appears to us that, assuming the facts found to be correct, the conviction is good in law. The facts found are these: that there was no one in undisputed possession of the land in question, but that a dispute of some considerable standing existed between the two parties as to who was entitled to the land and who was in possession of it; that a number of persons of the petitioner's party went to sow the land, together with a body of men armed with latties; that they were prepared to use force, if necessary; and that they stationed these lattials to keep off the opposite party and these were brandishing their weapons, while the land was sowed. That falls within the definition of the offence, because there was an assembly f...
Juggernauth Sew Bux and anr. Vs. Ram Dyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal791
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The contract in this case, as I understand, was in writing; there was nothing ambiguous about its terms, and it appeared upon the face of it to be a contract for the sale and purchase of Rs. 25,000 Government Securities, to be delivered on the 1st or 2nd of September following.2. The Judge of the Small Cause Court appears to have gone into the question upon oral evidence, whether the contract between the parties was really what it purported to be, or whether it was merely a wagering contract for differences without any intention by either party to carry out the sale and purchase of the securities.3. Upon this question the Judge has decided that it was a wagering contract, and as such void under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, or contrary to public policy under Section 23 of that Act; and the first question submitted to us by the reference is, whether he was right in so holding.4. Now, if it was competent to the Judge to determine upon oral evidence what the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›