Kolkata Court June 1889 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.
Gopal Chunder Surma Vs. G. Chisholm
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal711
Tottenham and Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant in a suit brought against him by the plaintiff to recover arrears of salary. The defendant disputed the amount due. In his written statement he has set out a number of items for which he claimed credit; and the total of which, if allowed, would reduce the plaintiff's claim by Rs. 624 odd.2. Both the Courts below decreed the plaintiff's claim in full, holding that none of the items set out by the defendant in his defence came within the scope of Section 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure and could not be claimed as a set-off. Against this decision the present appeal has been brought. As regards most of the items set out by the defendant we concur with the lower Court in thinking that they do not come within the scope of Section 111, for most of them are not ascertained 'amounts due by the plaintiff. It is true that they are all specifies amounts, but specified amounts are not necessarily ascertained debts. As ...
Mohur Mir and ors. and Kali Roy and ors. Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal725
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. We have heard these two rules together.2. In the first of them (Rule 202), six prisoners have been convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate. On appeal to the Sessions Judge, the sentences, were in some respects modified. As they stand at present, four of the accused have been convicted of, and sentenced for, offences falling under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and the only question which we have to consider is-whether these sentences were legal.3. Mr. Woodroffe contended that separate sentences under those sections could not be imposed, relying upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court, given in the appeal of Nilmoni poddar v. Queen-Empress I.L.R. 16 Cal. 442. That decision has, we think, no application to the facts of the present case. The decision in question dealt with the liability of one rioter for offences actually committed by another rioter. It in no way affects the question of the liability of a rioter for the acts committed by him...
Golap Pandey Vs. R.H. Boddam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal715
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. The first question which we must decide in this case is whether we ought to hold that the Magistrate had no power to try this case summarily, and that his proceedings are illegal.2. Learned Counsel for the accused cited to us cases to show that the offence was, for the purposes of Section 260 of the Criminal Procedure Code, determined by the complainant, and that if a complaint be made of an offence not triable summarily, the Magistrate cannot under any circumstances investigate the complaint summarily.3. Although there are expressions used in some of the cases sufficient to justify this argument, we do not think that the cases are so unanimous as to force us to the same conclusion.4. We say this as it appears to us that there may frequently be cases in which the charge has been exaggerated, and is, on examination by the Magistrate before process is issued, reduced to its proper proportions. This is notoriously the case in respect of many charges, which, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›